[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Constitution Of India) vs Smt. Pranayani Sahoo And Another .... ... on 30 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
C.M.P. No.870 of 2023
(In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India)
Smt. Korada Bharati .... Petitioner
-versus-
Smt. Pranayani Sahoo and another .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. B. Bhuyan, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Mr. S.S. Mohapatra,
Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate
(For the Opposite Party No.1)
Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate
(For Opposite Party No.2)
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 20.01.2026 / date of judgment : 30.01.2026
A.C. Behera, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner(plaintiff in the
suit vide C.S. No.200 of 2019) against the Opposite Parties praying for
quashing(setting aside) an order dated 27.04.2023 (Annexure-7) passed
in Civil Suit No.200 of 2019 by the learned Senior Civil Judge(LR &
LTV), Nayagarh.
2. The factual backgrounds of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition,
which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the petitioner
being the sole plaintiff filed the suit vide C.S. No.200 of 2019 against the
Opposite Parties arraying them as defendants praying for declaration of
the Sale Deed No.465 dated 12.04.2010 in favour of the defendant no.1
and the RoR in respect of the suit properties as null and void and the
same are not binding upon her(plaintiff).
In that suit, after completion of the pleadings of the parties, the
plaintiff filed a petition on dated 02.03.2021 under Order-6, Rule-17 read
with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 praying for amendment of the plaint
in order to insert that,
"while she(plaintiff) was aged about three years, she was adopted
by the original owner of the suit properties in the year 1961 and the
defendant no.2 was not adopted by the original owner of the suit
properties, i.e., Artabandhu Prusty and his wife Sundarmani Prusty and
she(plaintiff) is the sole successor of the original owner of the suit
properties being his adopted daughter, in which, the defendant no.2 has
no interest along with some other averments relating to the absence of
interest of the defendants in the suit properties."
To which, the defendants objected stating in their objection that,
the proposed amendment sought for by the plaintiff after disclosure of the
defence by them(defendants) in their respective written statements are
only in order to defeat/nullify the stands taken by them(defendants),
which cannot be allowed at this belated stage on the ground that, the
plaintiff had not taken such stands in her plaint initially, for which,
she(plaintiff) is precluded under law to insert the proposed amendments
in her plaint after disclosure of their pleadings in their respective written
statements. Therefore, the petition dated 02.03.2010 under Order-6, Rule-
17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 of the plaintiff is liable to
be rejected.
3. After hearing from both the sides, learned Senior Civil Judge(LR
& LTV), Nayagarh as per the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 rejected
to the major parts of the above proposed amendments sought for by the
plaintiff, but, allowed some minor portions thereof subject to payment of
cost of Rs.400/-(rupees four hundred) assigning the reasons that,
"the plaintiff(petitioner) has prayed for amendments, for no other
reason, but, only in order to patch up the lacunas of her plaint."
4. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid part rejection to the petition
dated 02.03.2021 under Order-6, Rule-17 read with Section 151 of the
C.P.C., 1908 of the plaintiff by the learned Senior Civil Judge(LR &
LTV), Nayagarh, she(plaintiff) challenged the same by filing this Civil
Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
1950 against the defendants arraying them as Opposite Parties praying
for quashing(setting aside) the same.
5. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner
(plaintiff) and the leaned counsel for the Opposite Parties(defendants).
6. It is undisputed case of the parties that, the petitioner filed the suit
vide C.S. No.200 of 2019 against the Opposite Parties praying for
declaration of the Sale Deed No.465 dated 12.04.2010 executed in favour
of the defendant no.1 in respect of the suit properties and RoR thereof as
null and void and the same are not binding upon her(plaintiff).
In the petition dated 02.03.2021 under Order-6, Rule-17 read with
Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908, the plaintiff had prayed for an
amendment of her plaint in order to insert the matters, i.e.,
she(plaintiff) is the adopted daughter of the original owner of the
suit properties, but, the defendant no.2 is not his adopted son, for which,
she(plaintiff) is the sole successor of the original owner of the suit
properties. Therefore, a declaration is to be made that, she(plaintiff) is the
owner of the suit properties being the sole successor of the original
owner, but, the defendant no.2 is not the adopted son as well as successor
of the original owner of the suit properties, for which, the defendants
have no interest in the suit properties.
7. On the aspect of consideration of a petition for amendment of the
pleadings under Order-6, Rule-17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C.,
1908, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon'ble
Courts and the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions :-
(i) In a case between Sumana Devi vrs. Darshan Pal and
others : reported in 2017(3) PLR-706 that,
Amendment of plaint--Amendment sought at the stage when
evidence of plaintiffs was yet to start--Nature of suit was also not
going to be changed nor any other alleged accrued right in favour of
the defendants was likely to be prejudiced. Held,
Amendment was sought to avoid multiplicity of litigation
between the parties. Moreover, an opportunity was also grant to
defendants to file their amended written statement after amendment
of plaint is allowed. Application under Order-6, Rule-17 of the
C.P.C. is allowed.
(ii) In a case between Vantipalli Surya Venkata Satya Prasad
vrs. Gangumalla Suryakantham and others : reported in 2016(4)
Civ.C.C.-116(A.P.)
Amendment of plaint--Delay--Not a ground to refuse
amendment, if amendment is sought prior to commencement of trial.
(iii) In a case between Life Insurance Corporation of India vrs.
Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd and another : reported in 2022(4) Civ.
C.C.-540(S.C.) that,
amendment as per Order-6, Rule-17 of the C.P.C., 1908
should ordinarily be allowed, unless they cause injustice or prejudice
to other side and that cannot be compensated in terms of cost,
because, the purpose of allowing amendment is to minimize the
litigation and to ensure that, all the issues between the Parties are
decided in the same proceeding.
8. Here in this matter at hand, when the petitioner being the plaintiff
in the suit vide C.S. No.200 of 2019 had filed the petition on dated
02.03.2021 under Order-6, Rule-17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C.,
1908 praying for amendment of the plaint in order to insert the matters as
stated above relating to her exclusive title over the suit properties as the
sole successor of the original owner of the suit properties denying the
interest of the defendants thereon stating that, the defendant no.2 is not
the adopted son of the original owner.
9. As per law, when the main object/purpose of amendment of the
pleadings is to minimize the litigations between the parties and to ensure
that, all the controversies and issues between the parties relating to the
subject matter of the suit shall be decided in the same and one proceeding
and when the proposed amendment should not ordinarily be refused,
unless the same will cause injustice or prejudice to the other side and
when in case of filing of a petition for amendment in delay, the same can
be compensated in terms of cost and when in case of allowing an
amendment, the party, who was opposing the same shall be given an
opportunity to file additional written statement against such amendment,
then at this juncture, by applying the propositions of law enunciated in
the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the learned Senior Civil Judge(LR &
LTV), Nayagarh should have allowed the entire petition dated
02.03.2021 under Order-6, Rule-17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C.,
1908 of the plaintiff(petitioner) instead of allowing the same in part,
because, the issues in the suit have not been framed and the above
proposed amendment shall minimize the litigation between the parties
and the same will not cause any injustice or prejudice to the Opposite
Parties(defendants), but, the learned Senior Civil Judge(LR & LTV),
Nayagarh has not done so.
For which, the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge(LR & LTV), Nayagarh in C.S. No.200 of
2019 rejecting the major portions of the proposed amendment sought for
by the petitioner(plaintiff) cannot be sustainable under law.
10. For which, there is justification under law for making interference
with the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the learned Senior
Civil Judge(LR & LTV), Nayagarh in the suit vide C.S. No.200 of 2019
through this Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by the petitioner(plaintiff).
11. Therefore, there is merit in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed
by the petitioner. The same is to be allowed.
In result, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by the
petitioner(plaintiff) is allowed on contest.
The part rejection to the petition dated 02.03.2021 of the petitioner
through the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 in C.S. No.200 of 2019 by
the learned Senior Civil Judge(LR & LTV), Nayagarh is quashed/set
aside.
12. The petition dated 02.03.2021 under Order-6, Rule-17 read with
Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 of the petitioner(plaintiff) in C.S. No.200
of 2019 for amendment of her pleadings is allowed in full subject to
payment of cost of Rs.2000/-(rupees two thousand) by the
petitioner(plaintiff) to the Opposite Parties(defendants) in total, i.e.,
Rs.1000/-(rupees one thousand) to each of the defendants.
The trial court shall provide opportunities to the defendants in the
suit vide C.S. No.200 of 2019 for the filing of their amended written
statements against the amended portions of the plaint.
The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit vide C.S. No.200 of
2019 as expeditiously as possible as per law giving priority to the year of
filing of the said suit without providing unnecessary adjournments to the
parties.
13. As such, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by the
petitioner(plaintiff) is disposed of finally.
( A.C. Behera )
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 30th of January, 2026/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Designation: Personal Assistant
