Laxmidhar Swain & Ors vs Rupashree Dash & Ors. ..... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3603 Ori

Orissa High Court

Laxmidhar Swain & Ors vs Rupashree Dash & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 20 April, 2026

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               CMP No.642 of 2026
            Laxmidhar Swain & Ors.         .....   Petitioners
                                                              Represented by Adv. -
                                                              Saroj Kumar Padhi

                                           -versus-
            Rupashree Dash & Ors.                     .....       Opposite Parties
                                                              Represented by Adv. -

                                 CORAM:
                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                               MOHAPATRA

                                          ORDER

20.04.2026 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein.

3. The defendant in C.S. No.396 of 2009 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Pipili, has approached this Court challenging the order dated 13.02.2026 at Annexure-6, whereby the application of the Plaintiff under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking recast of the issue by addition of an additional issue, has been allowed by the learned trial court.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners at the outset contended that the Opposite Parties-Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of right, title interest over the suit land and for consequential relief of injunction. The present Petitioners as defendant filed their written statement. Accordingly, issues were original framed on 14.11.2012 after

considering the pleadings from both sides. Thereafter, the trial proceeded and evidence has been closed from both sides.

5. Learned counsel for the Defendant-Petitioners at this juncture contended that after closure of the evidence an application was filed from the side of the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment of the plaint. Such application was rejected by the learned trial court as the plaintiff failed to satisfy the Court with regard to the due diligence stage as has been provided in the proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC.

6. He further contended that to delay the suit the plaintiff again filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking to recast the issue which was framed earlier on 14.11.2012. By virtue of the impugned order dated 13.02.2026, the learned trial court after hearing the plaintiff as well as taking into consideration the objection filed on behalf of the Defendant- Petitioners before the learned trial court, the learned trial court framed an additional issue vide order dated 13.02.2026 at Annexure- 6 to the CMP application. Being aggrieved by such recast of the issue, the defendant-Petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present CMP application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners while assailing the impugned order dated 13.02.2026 at Annexure-6 stated before this Court that the application under Order 14 Rule 5 has been filed at a belated stage i.e. after closure of the evidence when the suit was posted for argument. He further contended that the plaintiff, by filing the application to recast the issue, is trying to bring on record the pleading which was rejected by the learned trial court by rejecting the

application of the plaintiff filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. He further contended that the defendant-Petitioners will be seriously prejudiced in the event the issue is allowed to be recast as has been done by virtue of the impugned order dated 13.02.2026. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the impugned order being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners, on a careful examination of the documents annexed to the CMP application, further on a close scrutiny of order dated 13.02.2026 at Annexure-6, which has been assailed by the defendant-Petitioners in the present CMP application, this Court prima facie observes that the defendant in a suit for declaration and injunction has approached this Court thereby challenging order dated 13.02.2026 whereby the learned trial court has allowed the plaintiff's application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC and permitted the issue to be recast as has been indicated in the impugned order. To Review the conduct of the learned trial court while passing order dated 13.02.2026, this Court is required to examine as to whether the learned trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction while allowing recast of the issue on application of the plaintiff filed under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC.

9. On a careful examination of the provisions contained in Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC, it is very clear that the Court at any stage before passing of a decree may permit amendment of the issue or framing of an additional issue on such terms as he thinks fit or as being necessary for determining the matters on controversy between parties. Since the present case is confined to the Order 14 Rule 5(1), this Court is not required to go into sub-Rule 2. The aforesaid provisions contained in Order 14 Rule 5 (1) of the CPC confers a

wide power on the learned trial court to amend/recast or frame additional issue. Therefore, no objection can be raised with regard to the stage at which such amendment/recasting the issue is to be permitted by the learned trial court. As per the statutory provisions, it is open to the learned trial court to recast the issue or amend the same at any stage before passing the decree.

10. So far, the prejudice to the rivalry party is concerned, the same is to be examined from the fact and circumstances of every case. In the present case, it appears that the new issue that was framed is as follows: -

"Whether the sale deed executed in favour of the Defendant No.4 by Defendant No.1 as power of attorney holder of Defendant Nos.2 & 3 vide RSD No.789 dated 21.04.2008 is valid and binding upon the Plaintiff?"

11. Keeping in view the issue that was framed by virtue of the impugned order dated 13.02.2026, this Court examined the documents annexed to the CMP application as well as the impugned order. The learned trial court has specifically taken into consideration the fact that RSD No.798 dated 21.04.2008 has been pleaded by the parties and that the same is integrally connected with the relief of declaration of title between the plaintiff and the defendants. To grant the relief of declaration the learned trial court in any case is required to adjudicate the issue of validity of the RSD dated 21.04.2008. Moreover, for an effective and complete adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit, it is open to the learned trial court to frame any issue at any point of time before passing the decree. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that the issue framed is well within the pleadings of the parties and that it does not introduce any new facts. Moreover, no fresh evidence is required to be taken

even after the issue is amended/recast by the learned trial court. In view of my abovenoted finding that as per the provisions contained under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC it is well within the scope and authority of the learned trial court to recast/amend or frame an additional issue at any stage of the suit before passing of the decree, this Court finds no illegality in the order dated 13.02.2026 at Annexure-6 to the CMP application.

12. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court does not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order dated 13.02.2026. Moreover, any difference at this stage would otherwise cause delay in a suit which was filed in the year 2009. Considering the apprehension of the defendant that by virtue of the recasting of the issue the suit is likely to be delayed, this Court while disposing of the present CMP application directs the learned trial court to expedite the trial of the suit and strive to conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of communication of a copy of today's order. Both sides are directed to cooperate with the learned trial court for early disposal of the suit and they shall not take any unnecessary adjournments.

13. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CMP application stands disposed of.

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Rubi