IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMP No. 161 of 2026 Radhe Krushna Panaka @ Radhe Krushna Panka …. Petitioner Mr. J. Sahoo, Advocate -versus- Joli Bhotra …. Opp. Party CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 13.02.2026 01. 1. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 2. Challenging the rejection of his application under Order-VI, Rule-17 of C.P.C., by the learned Judge, Family Court, the Petitioner moved before this Court praying for setting aside the interim order dated 12.01.2026. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that subsequent to the Civil Proceeding No.20 of 2025, which was presented before the learned Judge, Family Court, Nabarangpur on 18.06.2025, the Petitioner sought for the following relief:- “Therefore, the petitioner, humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased enough to pass a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the p. 2 petitioner with the respondent and to pass such order(s) as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the best interest of justice.” 4. Later the Petitioner moved before the court concerned praying for an amendment of Paragraph-4 of the C.P. proceeding, inter alia praying to insert the following: “04-A. That after few months of marriage, the respondent and her parents pressurising the petitioner to convert into Christian religion, thereafter the petitioner came to know that the respondent and her parents are Christian. However, when the petitioner refused to convert himself into Christianity, the respondent and her parents were threatening the petitioner to rope him in criminal cases and put him in jail custody so that he will agree for such conversion and in this way also, the petitioner was subjected to mental torture by the respondent and her parents.” 5. Learned court having heard the respective parties, which was vehemently opposed, came to the conclusion with the findings as follows:- “This order shall dispose of the petition dated 10.12.2025 filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order-VI Rule-17 of the CPC seeking leave of the court to insert one paragraph i.e. paragraph-4A at page-2 in the plaint /petition by way amendment. The respondent has also filed written objection to the amendment petition filed by the petitioner. Heard on the petition. p. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner wants to insert one paragraph by way of amendment which the petitioner has failed to mention in the plaint petition. He also submits that the proposed amendment is formal in nature, which if allowed, will not change the nature and character of the plea taken by the petitioner in this proceeding Hence, he urges to allow the petition.” 6. The Code of Civil Procedure under Order-VI, Rule-17 mandates for amendment of pleadings as follows:- “17. Amendment of pleadings.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 7. A due diligence has to be demonstrated before the court before bringing an amendment subsequent to the initiation of the proceeding as reveals from the order impugned. The trial has already commenced. There is no material to satisfy this Court as to what prevented the Petitioner not to bring the aforesaid facts in the original C.P.; no material is found that despite due diligence, the p. 4 aforesaid fact could not be brought to the notice of the Petitioner in order to insert the same in the C.P. earlier. In the motion moved, a substantial change appears to be in the proposed amendment that likely to change the nature and character of the proceeding, which cannot be allowed in the given facts and circumstance. Therefore, there appears no illegality in the order impugned, and hence, this Court is not inclined to admit the application, and the same is disposed of at the stage of admission. 8. Needless to say that having regard to the nature of the application, the matter shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. Office to remit copy of this order forthwith to the learned court concerned through mail. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Sarbani Designation: Junior Stenographer