Sanatana Pattanayak And Others vs Ranjit Pattanayak And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 2252 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                CMP No. 1272 of 2022
                 Sanatana Pattanayak and others       ....      Petitioners
                                   Ms. Pranayanee Dasmohapatra, Advocate
                                         -versus-
                 Ranjit Pattanayak and another           ....    Opp. Parties

                          CORAM:
                          JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
                                       ORDER

Order No.                             20.03.2023
 3.         1.      This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Order dated 23rd September, 2022 (Annexure-1) passed by learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in RFA No.50 of 2017 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby an application filed by the Appellants/Petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for correction of typographical error in the appeal memo has been rejected.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel that Defendants- Petitioners have filed RFA No.50 of 2017 assailing the judgment dated 28th October, 2016 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagatsinghpur in CS No.14 of 2013. In para-10 (g) of their written statement, the Defendants have stated that Plaintiff No.2 had married to one Prakash Jena, son of Radhu Jena of village Dharadharapur, but in Ground 'G' of the Appeal Memo, they have inadvertently stated the Plaintiff No.2 is wife of Pravakar Jena of village Dharadharapur. Further, Defendants sought for amendment of description of Defendant- Appellant No.4 to be the daughter of Gandharba Pattanayak in place of Ramesh Pattanayak. Learned appellate Court observing

// 2 //

that the appeal is a continuation of the suit and if the amendment is allowed at this stage, the status of the parties will be changed, rejected the petition. Hence, this CMP has been filed.

4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the Petitioners and on perusal of judgment passed in CS No.14 of 2013, it appears that Defendant No.4 has been described as daughter of Ramesh Pattanayak, but in the appeal, the Petitioners wanted to amend the appeal memo by describing her as daughter of Gandharba Pattanayak. As Appellant No.4-Ranju Pattanayak has been described as daughter of Ramesh Pattanayak by them in the appeal memo itself, change in her description will certainly change her status. Thus, learned appellate Court has rightly rejected amendment of description of Appellant No.4. 4.1 But so far as the amendment of the description of Plaintiff No.2 is concerned, it is crystal clear from the averments made in the written statements at para-10(g) that the Defendants-Petitioners have stated that Plaintiff No.2 had married to Prakash Jena, but in the ground No.G of Appeal Memo, it is stated that she is wife of Pravakar Jena. Since it relates to the pleading of the Defendants before learned trial Court and they seek to correct the same in the appeal memo in terms of the pleadings in the written statement, this Court feels that the matter requires fresh consideration by learned appellate Court giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

5. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside only to the extent of refusing amendment of Ground No.G of the Appeal Memo. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur to consider the petition for

// 3 //

amendment of description of Plaintiff No.2 in the appeal memo. The rest part of the impugned order stands confirmed.

6. Since the matter is disposed of without issuing notice to Opposite Parties they are liberty to seek for variation of this same, if they feel aggrieved.

7. With the aforesaid observation, the CMP is allowed to the extent indicated above.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper application.

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

s.s.satapathy