[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Vedanta Ltd vs Odisha Mining Corporation Ltd. .... ... on 3 December, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.9617 of 2023
Vedanta Ltd., through its General .... Petitioner
Counsel (Aluminium & Power),
Kalahandi
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate
Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate
Ms. Deepika, Advocate
Mr. Udayan Verma, Advocate
Mr. Anubhav Ray, Advocate
Mr. Satya Smriti Mobanty, Advocate
Mr. Prashanta Kumar Nayak, Advocate
-Versus-
Odisha Mining Corporation Ltd. .... Opposite Parties
and others
Represented by Adv.-
Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, Senior Advocate
Mr. E.P. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Pravat Kumar Muduli, Advocate for O.P. No. 1
Mr. Saswat Das, A.G.A. for O.P. No.2
Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi, DSGI
Mr. S.S. Kashyap, CGC for O.P. No.3
CORAM:
HON' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Page 1 of 8
ORDER
Order No. 03.12.2025
1. This is an application for amendment of the writ petition to
incorporate additional grounds as well as additional relief in the writ
petition.
2. It is averred in the instant amendment application that the
necessary pleadings are in existence in the writ petition and,
therefore, the relief in commensurate with the same was not initially
incorporated in the writ petition and, therefore, such additional
prayers may be permitted to be brought by way of an amendment.
Apart from the same, the challenge to the action of the authorities are
also adumbrated in the relevant paragraphs containing the grounds
and amendment is sought to be allowed to add the further grounds in
order to effectuate the complete adjudication of the disputes involved
in the writ petition.
3. Before we proceed to decide the application for amendment, it
would be axiomatic to recapitulate the principles of law relating to
the amendment of the pleadings by the party. Order VI, Rule 17 of
the Code of Civil Procedure postulates that the party to the
proceedings may be permitted to amend their pleadings at any stage
of the proceedings provided such amendment is necessary for
complete and effective adjudication of the issues and/or dispute
involved therein. Since the advent of its incorporation in the
processual law, a consistent view was taken by the Courts that the
Court must consider the same by adopting a liberal approach subject
to the exceptions carved out in this regard.
3.1. The Court shall permit the party to amend the pleadings
provided it does not change the basic character of the proceeding,
causing prejudice to the other side, manifestly barred by limitation,
altering the cause of action initially pleaded, above all the same is
mala fide. The provision relating to the amendment was subsequently
being misused as the amendments were sought at the fag end of the
proceedings with an intent to delay the disposal thereof and keeping
in mind, the Malimath Committee while recommending the
amendment in the year 1999, proposed to delete the said provision
from the Code of Civil Procedure. There has been severe discourse
across the country after the deletion of the provision relating to the
amendment which invited further recommendations in the year 2002
for reintroduction of the said provision into the Code of Civil
Procedure. By inserting a proviso, the provision of Order VI, Rule 17
carves out situation for amendment of that pleading after the
commencement of trial subject however to the satisfaction of the
Court that despite due diligence, the parties seeking for an
amendment could not take out such application before the
commencement of trial.
3.2. The necessity of amending the pleadings is not only to avoid
the multiplicity of the proceedings, but to ensure a complete and
effective adjudication of the disputes and the reliefs to be granted to
the parties. The Court should not adopt a pedantic approach in
dealing with an application for amendment, but should embark its
journey on the peripheral of the provisions contained under Order VI,
Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, more particularly, the same
is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the disputes.
Any attempt taking a circuitous route of an amendment if intended to
withdraw an admission should be nipped in the bud with a rider that
the party may be permitted to amend explaining the admission made
in the said pleadings. The moment the Court finds that the
amendment would bring a new case completely foreign to the initial
cause of action or eclipsing the original cause of action, the Court
may refuse the party to amend the pleadings.
3.3. The enabling provisions contained under Order VI, Rule 17 of
the Code of Civil Procedure can be dissected in two parts, the first
part relates to discretion of the Court to permit the parties to amend
the pleadings. On the other hand, it makes it mandatory to permit the
party to amend, if the same is necessary for a complete adjudication
of the disputes involved therein. It is a satisfaction of the Court
whether such amendment is necessary within the folds of the said
provision and once a satisfaction is reached, it is imperative to permit
the parties to amend its pleadings. The party shall not be permitted to
amend the pleadings seeking a relief which is apparently barred by
limitation, but if the plea of limitation is debatable and dependent
upon the other factors including the evidence to be laid thereupon, it
should permit the party to incorporate such reliefs, keeping the point
of limitation open to be decided at the time of final disposal of the
proceeding. Ordinarily the amendment allowed by the Court relates
back to the date of the institution of the proceeding as if the said
pleading existed on the date of the presentation of a plaint, but there
is no fetter on the part of the Court to restrict the amendment from a
particular date by activating the doctrine of relation back. The Court
should be liberal when the relief in the form of a prayer is brought by
way of an amendment, more particularly, when the material facts
have already been pleaded at the time of the initiation of the said
proceeding.
3.4. The importance of incorporating the reliefs in the pleading not
only facilitates the adjudication of an issue, but imparting of justice
to the parties in a just and proper manner. Mere introduction of a
relief in the form of a prayer does not absolve the adversary to argue
and convince the Court that such relief is not sustainable nor to be
granted and, therefore, it does not cause any greater prejudice or any
injury. A simple prayer in commensurate with the facts pleaded in
the proceeding neither alter the cause of action nor bring any change
thereto as such relief can only be granted on the basis of a pleading
upon satisfactorily proved by a cogent and convincing materials. The
cause of action is a bundle of fact needs to be pleaded in order to
invite the attention of the Court to grant an appropriate relief
provided it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court. It cannot be a
stray incident, but the Court has to meticulously examine the facts
incorporated in the pleading in extenso in order to cull out the cause
of action. It is a fact which is pleaded takes an integral part of the
cause of action and the Court should be cautious when any new facts
are sought to be introduced by way of an amendment which at times
may tantamount to altering the position or causing a greater prejudice
and injury to the other side. Thus, the cause of action is dependent
upon several factors to be specifically incorporated in the pleadings
and must duly be verified by the party. The introduction of grounds
which is intricately related to a submission may be brought by way of
an amendment as it does not constitute an integral part of the cause of
action. The challenges can be made on several grounds both on facts
and law and it is imperative on the Court to decide the same at the
time of a hearing both on the ground of its sustainability and/or
legality.
3.5. Mere introduction of an additional ground in pursuit of the
final relief without disturbing the fabric of the cause of action may be
permitted to be brought in the pleadings and an opportunity is always
available to the adversary to meet the same by way of an additional
pleading. By way of an amendment, the petitioner intended to
introduce the grounds which according to him would render the
judgment of the authority unsustainable which cannot be said to be a
mala fide or tantamount to substitution of the cause of action.
4. We, thus, find that the proposed amendment being Part-A and
Part-B appearing in paragraph 42 of the application would not cause
any prejudice nor an injury and, therefore, we allow the application
for amendment. The petitioner is directed to file an amended writ
petition within the time provided under Order VI, Rule 18 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
5. The copy of the amended petition shall be served upon the
contesting opposite parties immediately after the filing of the same.
The contesting opposite parties are permitted to file an additional
counter affidavit to the amended writ petition within two weeks from
the date of service of the copy of the amended writ petition;
rejoinder, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.
6. List this matter on 12th January, 2026 at 2PM. The interim
order, if there be any, shall continue till the next date of listing.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
S.K. Guin/PA
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 11-Dec-2025 12:15:28
