Vikhyakari Mohapatra @ vs Dayanidhi Behera And Others ... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 9731 Ori

Orissa High Court

Vikhyakari Mohapatra @ vs Dayanidhi Behera And Others ... ... on 7 November, 2025

Author: B.P. Routray

Bench: B.P. Routray

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC, Cuttack
Date: 10-Nov-2025 10:32:40



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                                CMP No.1361 of 2025
                   (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of
                   India)

                    Vikhyakari Mohapatra @                       ....                  Petitioner
                    Bhikhyakari Mohapatra
                                                              -versus-

                    Dayanidhi Behera and Others                  ...            Opposite Parties

                   Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

                               For Petitioner          :   Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Advocate

                               For Opp. Parties        :   Mr. Lingaraj Sarangi, Advocate

                                 CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
                                                   JUDGMENT

th 7 November, 2025

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and

Mr. L. Sarangi, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.

2. Present CMP is directed against order dated 14th August, 2025 of

learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nayagarh passed in C.S. No.69

of 2020, wherein the prayer to amend the suit schedule property at

the instance of the Plaintiffs has been allowed.

3. Present Petitioner is the defendant and Opposite Parties are the

plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed the suit praying to declare their right,

title, interest over the suit schedule property along with their

possession over the same and to permanently restrain the defendant

from disturbing their peaceful possession over the suit property. It is

important here to reproduce the suit schedule property. Initially the

suit schedule property was as follows:-

SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY Dist.- Nayagarh, Mouza : Lenkudipada, Khata No.643/22 Plot No.1298, Area : Ac.0.410 dec.

Plot No.1298/4028 Ac.0.050 dec.

-----------------------------------------

Total 2 plots Ac.0.460 dec.

Then it was amended by the plaintiffs at the admission stage to

delete Plot No.1298/4028 measuring Ac.0.050 dec. and correcting

the area to Ac.0.150 dec. in Plot No.1298. So after first amendment

the suit schedule property remains as follows:-

SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY Dist.- Nayagarh, Mouza : Lenkudipada, Khata No.643/22 Plot No.1298, Area : Ac.0.150 dec.

4. The suit then proceeded and reached at the stage of argument. At

this stage the plaintiffs again seek to amend the suit schedule

property as Khata No.495, Plot No.1295/2825, area Ac.0.150 dec.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the

defendant that allowing the prayer of amendment to the suit schedule

property at the stage of argument would change the nature and

character of the suit since the claim of the plaintiffs and defendant's

defense in respect of present plot No.1295/2825 is completely

different from the claim over Plot No.1298. It is further submitted

that the plaintiffs did not explain the due diligence on their part for

not bringing the amendment in time.

6. Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits on the

contrary that unless the prayer for amendment sought by the

plaintiffs is allowed there would be multiplicity of proceedings. It is

further submitted by him that the actual plot number was unknown

to the plaintiffs at the beginning stage until the plaintiffs could get a

copy of the RoR of the suit plot.

7. The principles with regard to amendment in terms of Order 6,

Rule 17 C.P.C. has been well settled in the case of Life Insurance

Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and

Another, (2022) 16 SCC 1, wherein it has been held as follows:-

"71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:

71.1. Order 2 Rule 2CPC 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 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.

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.) "

8. In the case at hand admittedly the suit is at the belated stage of

argument and the basis of claim of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit

land is the sale deed dated 4th July 1975. It is explained by the

plaintiffs that since the RoR was not available with them earlier as

per Annexure-A/1, they had no scope to know about the exact plot

number earlier.

9. It is true that as per RSD No.5523 dated 4 th July 1975 relied by

the plaintiffs to establish their claim, the land schedule was

described as Mouza Lenkudipada, Khata No.335, Plot No.1300

measuring total Ac.0.35 dec., out of which Ac.0.15 dec. towards

western side was sold. The boundary of said plot was mentioned as

North-East - own plot, South - Kunja Mohanty, West - Jogi Swain.

Despite such specific mention of plot number, area and boundary in

the sale deed, the plaintiffs failed to mention the same in the suit

schedule property though admittedly their claim is based on the sale

deed dated 4th July 1975. Undoubtedly, the sale deed dated 4th July

1975 is a part of the suit record and marked in exhibit. It needs to be

mentioned here that the land schedule mentioned in the registered

sale deed was not reflected in the plaint anywhere and the schedule

of the land contained at the foot of the plaint describes a complete

different plot and khata number. Thought the plaintiffs amended the

suit schedule land for the first time at the admission stage but they

failed to bring the present land as sought to be incorporated in the

amendment.

10. Now looking to the explanation of the plaintiffs as to due

diligence on their part, the only reason mentioned on their behalf is

that they do not aware of the current recording of the plots in the

RoR. It is of course stated by the plaintiffs that the land schedule

mentioned in the plaint is in terms of the current settlement while the

land schedule mentioned in the registered sale deed was in terms of

measure settlement. But this is not explained in detail in the body of

the plaint nor do the suit schedule describes the lands in terms of the

lands mentioned in the registered sale deed. So, the reasons as stated

by the plaintiffs that the current settlement plot number was not

within their knowledge by the time of filing of the suit untill the

amendment petition filed in March, 2025 is not found satisfactory on

their part. It is for the reason that to show their bona-fideness the

plaint schedule should have contained the details of land as

mentioned in the registered sale deed because their claim is based on

the registered sale deed alone. The plaintiffs do not explain in detail

as to what prevented them to get the certified copy of the RoR earlier

which they brought recently in the month of March, 2025.

11. Looking from other aspect, if the prayer for amendment sought

by the plaintiffs is allowed at the present stage it will change the

entire nature of the suit since the claim of the plaintiffs will shift

from plot No.1298 to 1295 against which the defendant of course

has to raise a fresh defense. This will amount to leading of evidence

afresh from both sides treating the suit to be tried from the

beginning. This would also affect the issues already framed in the

suit.

12. The proviso contained in Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. requires the

parties to demonstrate due diligence on their part for not bringing

such new facts before commencement of trial, particularly as in the

instant case till the stage of argument. As stated above, while giving

evidence the plaintiffs did not mention plot No.1295 and therefore

the defendant did not advance his defence in respect of Plot

No.1295. So now if the plot number will be permitted to be changed

at the stage of argument, the defendant would definitely be

prejudiced to his disadvantage. It is true that the amendment to the

plaint may be allowed to prevent multiplicity of proceedings but that

does not imply that the party would have a right to seek amendment

to incorporate new facts to the disadvantage of adverse party. No

amendment should be permitted to cause injustice to the other side.

So, upon analysis of the facts in the case at hand based on the

principles as settled in the afore-cited decision, it is held that the

amendment sought for by the plaintiff to incorporate new land

schedule in the plaint at the present stage of argument should not be

allowed.

13. Accordingly the impugned order dated 14th August, 2025 is set

aside and the CMP is allowed.

( B.P. Routray) Judge M.K. Panda/P.A