Pratimarani Patra vs Dillip Hali And Others ... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 11447 Ori

Orissa High Court

Pratimarani Patra vs Dillip Hali And Others ... Opposite ... on 18 December, 2025

Author: B.P. Routray

Bench: B.P. Routray

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 22-Dec-2025 16:25:24


                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                   CMP No.1762 of 2025
                       (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution
                       of India)

                       Pratimarani Patra                                 ...                Petitioner

                                                              -versus-


                       Dillip Hali and others                            ...          Opposite Parties
                       Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

                                       For Petitioner          :         Mr.T.K.Mishra, Advocate

                                       For Opposite Parties    :         Mr.A.P.Bose, Advocate


                                         CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

                                                       JUDGMENT

th 18 December, 2025

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Present CMP is directed assailing the order dated 15th

September 2025 of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhubaneswar

passed in C.S.No.570 of 2022, wherein the prayer of the plaintiff to

amend the plaint at the stage of argument has been allowed.

2. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and

Mr.Bose, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.

Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL

Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 16:25:24

3. Present Opposite Party No.1 is the plaintiff and he filed the suit

praying to declare the Sale Deed bearing No.8996 dated 23rd August

2006 as illegal and not binding, with further prayer to correct the ROR

and permanent injunction. The defendant, who is the present

Petitioner, contested the suit by filing his written statement. Both

parties led their evidence and examined such witnesses on their part.

When the matter was posted for argument and after the argument from

defendant side is over, the plaintiff filed a petition on 16 th September

2025 praying to amend the written statement in order to correct

certain figures and names at paragraph 3 & 4 of the plaint.

4. In addition to the same, a new sentence was also sought to be

adduced by the plaintiff, which was rejected by the learned trial court

and same is not the subject matter before this Court.

5. Law relating to amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC

have been well settled in catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court. 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:

Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL

Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 16:25:24

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: 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

Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL

Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 16:25:24

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 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.

Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL

Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 16:25:24

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.) "

6. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Revanna v.

Anjanamma, (2019) 4 SCC 332, have held that;

"7. Leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent case, or challenges the fundamental character of the suit. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC virtually prevents an application for amendment of pleadings from being 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 the trial. The proviso, to an extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Therefore, the burden is on the person who seeks an amendment after commencement of the trial to show that in spite of due diligence, such an amendment could not have been sought earlier. There cannot be any dispute that an amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and under all circumstances. Though normally amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid

Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL

Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 16:25:24

multiplicity of litigation, the court needs to take into consideration whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide and whether the amendment causes such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money."

7. Admittedly, the present amendment has been sought by the

plaintiff at the stage of argument. In order to appreciate the purpose of

the amendment, paragraphs 3 & 4 of the plaint as well as the proposed

amendment are reproduced below:

"3. That, the suit land in the sabak R.O.R. stood recorded in the name of Sikhara Jena, Son of Maguni Jena. Sikhara Jena to meet his legal necessity on dt- 18.11.1958 vide R.S.D. No.1199 transferred the suit land in favour of Ratnakara Jena, Son of' Sikhara Jena and in pursuance to his delivery possession of the land was also given to said Sikhara Jena.

4. That, Sikhara Jena while was in peaceful possession over the property he too meet his legal necessity vide R.S.D. No.4660 dt.10.5.1969 transferred the suit land in favour of Rangalata Hali, Wife of Hadibandhu Hali. In pursuance to this, delivery possession of the land was also given to Rangalata Hali."

PROPOSED AMENDMENT

"Substitute the figure 9463 in place of 1199 and the name Ratnakara Jena in place of Sikhar Jena in para-3 of the plaint and also add a new sentence after last sentence of para 3 of the plaint and substitute the name Ratnakar Jena in place of Sikhar Jena in para-4."

Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL

Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 16:25:24

8. As seen from the copy of deposition of P.W.1 & 2, and D.W.1

& 2, RSD bearing No.9463 has been marked as Ext.1 (with

objection). Further, RSD No.1199 dated 10th February 1958 has been

marked as Ext.B (with objection). Undoubtedly RSD No.9463 is with

the name of the vendor Ratnakar Jena as per Ext.1. While arguing

their respective cases before the learned trial court, the plaintiff

realized the mistake typed in the plaint and therefore, sought for

correction of the same by way of amendment as revealed from the

schedule of proposed amendment. The learned trial court accepted the

same as a typographical mistake and allowed to correct the same, i.e.

the number of the Registered Sale Deed as 9463 in place of 1199 and

the name of Ratnakar Jena in place of Sikhara Jena. The objection is

raised from the side of the defendant that when the plaint was filed

and Ext.1 was within the knowledge of the plaintiff, he did not realize

the mistake on his part till the matter was argued and therefore at such

belated stage the amendment sought for by the plaintiff amount to

bringing a new case by the plaintiff. Such submission as contended by

the defendant (present Petitioner) before this Court is not found

correct. It is for the reason that when RSD No.9463 with the name of

the vendor as Ratnakar Jena has already been brought on record vide

Ext.1, of course marked with objection from the side of the defendant,

Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL

Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 16:25:24

it cannot be said that plaintiff is trying to bring a new case in his

favour at the stage of argument. The learned trial court has rightly

appreciated the prayer of the plaintiff to correct the number and name

as per the sale deed sought for by the plaintiff treating the same as a

typographical error. The entire fact as wanted to bring in amendment

by the plaintiff, if is examined closely in reference to the earlier

pleading available at para 3 & 4 of the plaint, the same never amounts

to bring either a new fact or withdrawal of admission or change of

nature of the suit.

9. As stated above, both the sale deeds under Ext.1 & Ext.B have

since been brought on record, only the formality is left to correct the

number of the sale deed and name of the vendor at the instance of the

plaintiff. So far as delay part is concerned, it is true that the plaintiff

has sought such amendment at the stage of argument. But keeping the

nature of amendment sought for in view, which is found more as a

typographical mistake, it would be natural to have overlooked until

such fact came to the notice of the plaintiff. Moreover, this change in

the pleading would not require any fresh evidence or fresh material

for adjudication of the dispute and therefore, there would not be any

hindrance on the part of the trial court in allowing the amendment as

Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL

Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 16:25:24

sought by the plaintiff, particularly keeping in view the fact that Ext.1

and Ext.B have been produced on record.

10. In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons stated, no merit is

seen in the challenge of the Petitioner to interfere with the impugned

order. The CMP is accordingly rejected.

( B.P. Routray) Judge

C.R.Biswal, A.R.-cum-Sr.Seretary