Orissa High Court
Tukuni Patra And Others vs Gagan Bihari Mohanty And Others .... ... on 23 October, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No. 761 of 2023
Tukuni Patra and others .... Petitioners
Represented by
Mr.D.R. Rath, Advocate
-Versus -
Gagan Bihari Mohanty and others .... Opp. Parties
Represented by
Mr. G.M. Rath, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER_
23.10.2025
Order No. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
6.
2. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the original Defendant
No.1 in C.S.Nos.154/116 of 2009/2007 pending in the Court of 2nd
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar. In the present
application, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
they seek to challenge the order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the
trial Court allowing the application filed by the Plaintiffs for
amendment of the plaint. The amendment pertains to the year of the
sale deed in dispute, which according to the plaintiffs was
mentioned as "10.03.2006" instead of "10.03.2003".
3. The suit was originally decreed as per judgment passed on
23.04.2018, followed by the decree. The Defendants carried appeal
to the District Court being RFA No. 77 of 2018, By judgment
passed on 03.02.2023 followed by decree, the 1st Appellate Court
was of the view that unless the typographical error in the date of the
disputed sale deed is corrected by way of amendment, it would
result in passing of an unenforceable decree. As such, the appeal
was allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree
and the suit was remanded for hearing afresh. The 1st Appellate
Court specifically held that the Plaintiffs should be granted liberty
to amend their plaint and such amendment would require framing
of an additional issue with regard to the law of limitation.
4. Pursuant to such judgment and decree, the Plaintiffs filed an
application for amendment, which came to be allowed by the trial
Court by the order impugned. The trial Court held that while all
other particulars of the deed were mentioned correctly, the date was
wrongly mentioned. Moreover, the certified copy of sale deed was
exhibited as Exhibit -3, which supported the case of the plaintiffs
that its date had been wrongly mentioned as "10.03.2006" instead
of "10.03.2003". The trial Court therefore, allowed the prayer for
amendment and held that the question of limitation shall be finally
decided or determined after adducing of evidence by both parties.
5. Mr. D. R. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the Plaintiffs had filed the suit deliberately misstating the year of
the sale deed only to save the law of limitation and therefore,
allowing the amendment was wrong.
6. Mr. G.M. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff-
Opposite Parties would submit that both the trial Court in the
impugned order as well as the 1st Appellate Court have concurrently
found that the date of the sale deed was wrongly mentioned because
of a typographical mistake. Furthermore, the amendment was
allowed subject to determination of the question of limitation and
therefore, the Defendants cannot be said to have been prejudiced in
any manner.
7. After considering the submissions made and on perusal of the
impugned order as well as the judgment passed by the 1 st Appellate
Court in RFA No.77 of 2018, this Court finds no reason to interfere
in the matter. The dispute revolves around validity of the sale deed,
the number of which was correctly stated in the plaint but the date
was wrongly mentioned as "10.03.2006" instead of "10.03.2003".
The trial Court was satisfied about the typographical error since the
certified copy of the sale deed itself was admitted into evidence as
Exhibit-3. Under such circumstances, it was rightly held that in case
a decree is passed, it would be unenforceable.
8. As regards the question of limitation, as rightly held by the 1st
Appellate Court as well as the trial Court in the impugned order, the
same is always open to be agitated and determined in the suit at the
time of hearing. Therefore, the Defendants cannot claim to be
prejudiced in any manner. This Court therefore, has no hesitation in
observing that the impugned order does not warrant any
interference.
9. The CMP is therefore, dismissed. The trial Court shall make
all endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible, preferably
within three months hence.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge
BC Tudu
Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 24-Oct-2025 18:42:52
