Sunita Mohapatra @ Mahapatra vs Snehanjali Mallik
2023 Latest Caselaw 8294 Ori

          ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K
                       W.P.(C) No.17474 of 2023
                 An application under Article 226 & 227 of
                         the Constitution of India.


Sunita Mohapatra @ Mahapatra                          : Petitioner

                                 -Versus-

Snehanjali Mallik                                     : Opposite Party


For Petitioner                                 : M/s. A. Mishra,
                                                      S.K. Samantaray
For Opposite Party                             : M/s. S.K. Nayak, K. Jena,
                                                      S.S.K. Nayak,
                                                      M. Mohanty,
                                                      S. Suman

                                 JUDGMENT

CORAM :

JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH Date of hearing & judgment:: 31.07.2023

1. Heard the submissions of respective counsel.

2. This Writ Petition has been brought by the return candidate appearing to give a contest to the allowing of the amendment application in favour of the election Petitioner i.e. the Opposite Party herein.

3. Learned counsel for Petitioner taking this Court to the proposed amendment vis-à-vis the pleadings made in this Writ Petition contended that there has been surprise attempt by way of amendment, which is completely contrary to the material disclosure in the pleadings part and

// 2 //

accordingly an attempt is made to object the allowing of the application U/o.6 R.17 of C.P.C.

4. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for Opposite Party on the other hand made an attempt through paragraph nos.5 & 6 to contend that there is no contradiction and there is even attempt only to remove the defects by brining correct facts inasmuch as the G.P. number and only to correct the Serial Number and ward number, which is again in consonance with the reality.

5. Mr. Mishra, learned State Counsel also attempted to support the submission of Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for Opposite Party.

6. It is, in the given circumstance, this Court going through the pleadings made in paragraph nos.5 & 6 reading together with the proposed amendment and the reasons in the impugned order, finds, there has been no taking away of the admission and attempt whatever made in paragraph nos.1 & 6 is clearly in terms of the pleadings and to bring correct facts established through materials. It appears, attempts through paragraph nos.2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 are in a process of bringing the actual figures dependent on the materials available on record. There is no dispute at Bar that amendment of the Election dispute is brought pre-commencement of evidence.

7. In the circumstance, this Court finds, there is no illegal attempt in bringing the proposed amendment. This Court here finds, there is right consideration given to the amendment application and there is no prejudice to the Petitioner herein at all. Thus there requires no interference in the impugned order. This Court, however, for the allowing of the amendment application herein observes, the return candidate must get an opportunity to bring home the additional written statement in terms of the proposed amendment allowed herein. It is directed, in the event the

// 3 //

amended plaint is brought within a period of seven days hence and a copy of which being served on the return candidate, the return candidate shall do well in bringing additional counter affidavit within a period of ten days thereafter. Here keeping in view the request of both the learned Counsels for targeting the Election Dispute, this Court considering that the Election Dispute is pending since 2022 directs, the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandabali shall do well in giving a lawful disposal to such proceeding within a period of four months from the date of appearance of the parties.

8. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Election Tribunal i.e the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandabali along with a copy of this judgement on 7th August, 2023.

9. Writ Petition stands disposed of. There is, however, no order as to costs.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

The 31st day of July, 2023// Ayaskanta Jena, Senior Stenographer

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 01-Aug-2023 18:11:01