[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Krushna Nanda Mohanty vs Sunanda Pattanaik & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 10 February, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No.1876 of 2025
Krushna Nanda Mohanty ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Sourav Suman Bhuyan
-versus-
Sunanda Pattanaik & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Gopinath Mishra (for
O.P. Nos.6 to 8)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
10.02.2026
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as
learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.6 to 8.
Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present application under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the plaintiff in CS No.197/64 of 2018/20
pending in the court of learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Baripada has approached this Court challenging the
order dated 17.11.2025 whereby the learned trial court has rejected
the plaintiff's application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for
amendment of the plaint.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an
application seeking amendment to the plaint. He further submitted
that although earlier the plaintiff had filed an application for
amendment, however, the facts which are sought to be introduced
by way of an amendment were not within the knowledge of the
plaintiff. He further submitted that the trial in the suit has not
commenced as of now. Hence, before commencement of the trial,
he had filed this application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC
seeking amendment of the plaint. While supporting the amendment
application filed at the instance of the plaintiff, learned counsel for
the Petitioner contended that the same would go a long way in
helping the learned trial court to come to a just conclusion in the
case. It was also submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff-
petitioner that in the event the amendment is allowed, the same
would not cause any prejudice to the defendants. On such ground,
learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the order of
rejection dated 17.11.2025 is mechanical and in the event the same
is allowed, there is every likelihood that the Petitioner will be
seriously prejudiced.
5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.6 to 8-
defendants on the other hand submitted that although the suit is of
the year 2018, however, the trial has not commenced yet. He
further alleged that every time the suit is posted for trial, the
plaintiff-petitioner has filed one after another application for
adjournment. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.6 to 8
further contended that the amendment sought for by the plaintiff is
not necessary as he has already pleaded the facts in his plaint which
has been duly answered by the defendants in their W.S. He further
submitted that the facts pleaded can very well be introduced by
adducing evidence. On such ground, learned counsel for the
defendants-Opposite Party Nos.6 to 8 objected to the prayer made
in the present CMP application while supporting the impugned
rejection order dated 17.11.2025.
6. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts
as well as the impugned order dated 17.11.2025 and on a close
scrutiny of the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC
at Annexure-3, this Court is of the considered view that the
proposed amendments will not change the nature and character of
the suit. Moreover, the same is clarificatory in nature. Furthermore,
it is not disputed by the parties that the trial has not commenced,
therefore, the due diligence clause will not be applicable to the case
of the present Petitioner. However, taking into consideration the
objection of the learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.6 to 8
that earlier also the Petitioner had filed an application for
amendment, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner did not
exercise due diligence while filing the previous amendment
application. Further, taking note of the fact that although the case is
of the year 2018, however, the trial has not commenced as the
matter is being adjourned on one plea or the other. As such, this
Court is of the view that the delay is definitely a ground which
causes prejudice to the defendants.
7. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual position, this
Court is of the considered view that the learned trial court should
not have rejected the application for amendment filed at the
instance of the plaintiff. Accordingly, order dated 17.11.2025 is
hereby set aside. Further, taking into consideration the fact that the
Petitioner has filed this third application for amendment, this Court
imposes a cost of Rs.2000/- on the plaintiff which shall be paid to
the defendant in the learned trial court. Further, taking note of the
fact that the case is of the year 2018, the learned trial court is
directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same as
expeditiously as possible. The parties are directed not to take any
unnecessary adjournments and cooperate with the learned trial
court for an early conclusion of the trial.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the CMP
application stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 12-Feb-2026 17:02:02
