Orissa High Court

Saktikanta Samal vs Charan Samal & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 13 November, 2025

Author: B.P. Routray

Bench: B.P. Routray

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SANGRAM DAS
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 17-Nov-2025 17:12:45




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                      C.M.P. No.885 of 2025

                           (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution
                           of India)


                             Saktikanta Samal                          ....                 Petitioner


                                                                     -versus-


                             Charan Samal & Anr.                       ....              Opposite Parties



                           Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

                                          For Petitioner          : Mr. L.Mishra, Advocate

                                          For Opposite Parties    : None



                                             CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY
                                                             JUDGMENT

th 13 November 2025

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. L.Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner.

2. No one appears on call for the Opposite Parties.

3. Present CMP is directed against order dated 20th March 2025

passed in C.S.No.39 of 2023 by learned Civil Judge (Senior

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

Division), Chandikhole, wherein the prayer for amendment of the

plaint sought by the Plaintiff has been rejected.

4. Present Petitioner is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit praying to

declare R.S.D. No.3496 dated 23rd December 1996 in respect of the

suit schedule land as illegal and void and further, subsequent sales

made by Defendant No.1 in respect of the suit land along as

inoperative, for declaration of right title interest of the Plaintiff over

the suit land and consequential reliefs. At the stage awaiting written

statement from the side of Defendant No.1, the Plaintiff sought for

amendment of the plaint as per the amendment petition dated 2 nd

December 2024. In said amendment, the boundary of the land

schedule is sought to be changed along with some other changes in

the plaint averment and in the prayer portion of the plaint. But the

learned Trial Court upon consideration of the same rejected the

prayer for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the same will

change the nature and character of the suit and it will change the

pleadings of the Plaintiff entirely.

5. Before delving further into the merits of the challenge, it

needs to be stated here about general principles regarding

amendment of the plaint. In Life Insurance Corporation of India

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt.Ltd & Anr., 2022 SCC Online SC 1128

Hon'ble Supreme Court has 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:

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

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,

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

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.) "

6. In the case at hand, a copy of the amendment petition has been

produced at Annexure-3 and the copy of the plaint is available at

Annexure-1. Admittedly, the trial has not commenced yet, as per the

statement of present Petitioner where the suit is awaiting written

statement from the side of Defendant No.1. Looking to the petition

for amendment it is seen that except the change of boundary of the

suit schedule land and prayer portion of the plaint, the other changes

sought by way of amendment are formal in nature. So far as the

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

incorporation of amended boundary of the suit land is concerned, it

is true that the Plaintiff while seeking change in the boundary did not

seek change of plot number or area. According to the Plaintiff the

description of boundary of the property could not be mentioned

properly due to inadvertence on the part of the conducting lawyer

which is required to be corrected. It is further stated that though the

prayer of cancellation of the original sale deed mentioned in Para-

11(a) of the plaint is not sought to be changed but the date is

required to be corrected as "23rd December 1996" in place of "23rd

January 1996", which is a typographical mistake. Similarly,

Defendant No.2 has been mentioned in place of Defendant No.1 and

vice versa in the prayer portion due to typographical mistake which

needs to be corrected accordingly.

7. Thus from a bare comparison of the amendment petition under

Annexure-3 with the copy of the plaint under Annexure-1, it is found

that the substance of relief claimed by the Plaintiff in the plaint is

not going to be affected by way of the proposed amendment, but

some errors appeared either due to inadvertence or by typographical

mistake are required to be corrected in the plaint. So no reason is

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

found to opine that the proposed amendment would change the

nature and character of the suit.

8. So far as the pleadings in the plaint are concerned, the same is

not changed substantially and the Plaintiff only seeks to correct

some typographic errors appearing therein due to oversight

according to his contention. When the description of the land

including the plot number and area is not sought to be affected by

the proposed amendment, the only prayer to change the boundary

tenants would not change the pleadings or nature of relief in the suit.

Moreover, the suit is at the preliminary stage where issues are yet to

be framed. Therefore, there would be no harm or substantial

prejudice caused to the adversaries in case the amendments are

allowed to be incorporated. As stated in the afore cited decision, it

is settled that the amendment should ordinarily be allowed unless it

causes disadvantage or injustice to the adverse party and when the

suit is at the preliminary stage where the issues are yet to be framed

the amendment sought by the Plaintiff should ordinarily be allowed.

9. In view of the discussions made above, the CMP is allowed

and the impugned order is set aside. The prayer for amendment of

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

the plaint as per amendment petition dated 2nd December 2024 is

allowed.