C.M.P. No.2044 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.M.P. No.2044 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) Sirish Mohanta …. Petitioner -versus- Birendranath Mohanta and others …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Patnaik, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, Advocate For O.P. Nos.1 to 3 CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 9th January 2026 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.K. Patnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties 1 to 3. 2. Present C.M.P. is directed against order dated 03.11.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Rairangpur in C.S. No.200 of 2019, wherein the prayer of the Plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint has been allowed. Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:54:11 Signature Not Verified C.M.P. No.2044 of 2025 3. Present Petitioner is Defendant No.18 and Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are the Plaintiffs. After completion of the pleading from both sides, issues were settled and now the suit is pending for adducing evidence from the side of the Plaintiffs. At this stage, the proposed amendment was sought for by the Plaintiffs to be incorporated in the plaint. 4. Mr. S. Patnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner (Defendant No.18) submits that, the amendments proposed by the Plaintiffs is not at all necessary though he agrees to the fact that said amendment sought for does not change the nature and character of the suit. According to him, the amendment which is unnecessary on the part of the Plaintiffs, as the proposed plots are already there in the suit schedule, the Plaintiffs are lingering disposal of the suit. 5. The stage of the suit that it is before the stage of evidence to be adduced from the side of the Plaintiffs, is admitted and it is not the case of the Defendants that, the proposed amendment would change the nature and character of the suit. 6. In the matter of amendment under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C., the well-known principle is that, the same should be allowed liberally Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:54:11 Signature Not Verified C.M.P. No.2044 of 2025 unless it changes the nature and character of the suit or cause prejudice to adverse party or has been brought at a belated stage without explanation towards due diligence. Further the amendment should not be allowed if it permits the party to withdraw his admission, if any, made earlier. 7. The general principles of amendment are well settled in plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, (2022) 16 SCC 1, it has been held as follows:- “71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: 71.1. Order 2 Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order 2 Rule 2CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. 71.2. All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order 6 Rule 17CPC. 71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed: Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:54:11 Signature Not Verified C.M.P. No.2044 of 2025 71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. 71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side, and (c) the amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). 71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless: 71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time- barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration. 71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit. 71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. 71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. 71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to pin- pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. 71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time-barred Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:54:11 Signature Not Verified C.M.P. No.2044 of 2025 cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. 71.8. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. 71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. 71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. 71.11. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gaginder Kr. Gandhi.) ” Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:54:11 Signature Not Verified C.M.P. No.2044 of 2025 8. In the case at hand, as stated earlier, it is not the Defendants’ case that the proposed amendment is anyway changing the nature and character of the suit. It is also admitted that the suit is awaiting for adducing evidence from the side of the Plaintiffs. What is submitted on behalf of Defendant No.18 to object incorporation of the proposed amendment that the same is unnecessary, is not found convincing. It is for the reason that the Plaintiffs being the dominus litis of the case and they are the authority to decide what would be there in the plaint. The Defendants have no right to object to the manner of the pleading made in the plaint to say anything thereof as unnecessary or unwarranted. Of course, the remedy to strike down pleading under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. is on different principle. But the Defendants cannot choose the extent of pleading to be made by the Plaintiff. 9. The Plaintiffs have the right to choose their manner of pleading and the amendment proposed having been made before adducing evidence, and without changing the nature and character of the suit and without causing any harm to the adverse party, should be allowed by taking a liberal approach. Thus, the finding of the learned trial court in support of the Plaintiffs to allow their prayer for amendment of the plaint is found without any infirmity. Digitally Signed Signed by: BASANTA KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:54:11 Signature Not Verified C.M.P. No.2044 of 2025 10. In the result, the C.M.P. is dismissed. 11. However, as prayed by the Petitioner, learned trial court is directed to take steps for early disposal of the suit, preferably within a period of one year from today. (B.P. Routray) Judge B.K. Barik/Secretary