[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sanjulata Sahoo And Another vs Satya Prakash Mohanty And .... Opposite ... on 20 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
C.M.P. No.1607 of 2023
(An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Sanjulata Sahoo and another .... Petitioners
-versus-
Satya Prakash Mohanty and .... Opposite Parties
Others
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioners - Mr. T. K. Mishra,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties - Mr. M. Mohanty,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :20.03.2026 :: Date of Judgment :20.03.2026
A.C. Behera, J. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners
praying for quashing (setting aside) the impugned order dated
05.08.2023 passed in C.S. No.107 of 2019 by the learned Senior Civil
Judge, Jajpur.
2. The factual backgrounds of this CMP, which prompted the
petitioners for filing of the same is that, the petitioners being the
plaintiffs filed the suit vide C.S. No.107 of 2019 against the O.Ps
arraying them (O.Ps) as defendants praying for declaration of their
right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties, to declare
that, they (defendants) have no manner of right, title, interest and
possession in the suit properties, to declare that, the recording of the
name of the defendant No.3 in respect of the suit properties in the Hal
R.o.R. is wrong and illegal and to pass a decree for eviction against
the defendant Nos.1 & 2 directing them (defendant Nos.1 & 2) to
vacate the suit properties and to deliver the possession of the same to
the plaintiffs stating in their plaint that, they (plaintiffs) are the
successors of Gadadhar Sahoo, being his two daughters. The suit
properties were the self-acquired properties of their father Gadadhar
Sahoo, but unfortunately, the R.o.R. thereof was prepared alone in the
name of the defendant No.3 (Paramananda Sahoo). When the
defendant Nos.1 & 2 created disturbances in their possession in the
suit properties, then they (plaintiffs) filed the suit vide C.S. No.107 of
2019 against the defendants seeking the above reliefs.
3. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide
C.S. No.107 of 2019, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 filed their joint written
statement taking their stands that, Gadadhar Sahoo, Sadananda Sahoo
and Bidyadhar Sahoo being the three sons of Purusottam Sahoo, they
were three brothers and while they (three brothers) were living in
joint mess and property, they had acquired properties individually.
Gadadhar Sahoo had purchased the suit properties from one Anam
Kar through RSD No.6270 dated 28.08.1950. The said Gadadhar
Sahoo died leaving behind his two daughters i.e. Sanjulata and
Manjulata i.e. plaintiffs as his successors. After the death of Gadadhar
Sahoo, his two daughters i.e. plaintiffs along with their uncles i.e.
Sadananda Sahoo and Bidyadhar Sahoo were possessing the suit
properties as their joint properties. For the marriages of the plaintiffs,
their uncles i.e. Sadananda and Bidyadhar sold the suit properties to
one Babula Sahoo on dated 09.08.1985. Babula Sahoo sold the same
to the defendant No.3 through R.S.D. No.819 dated 08.09.1989. The
defendant No.3 sold the suit properties to the defendant Nos.1 & 2.
Therefore, they (defendant Nos.1 & 2) are the owners and in
possession over the suit properties, in which, the plaintiffs have no
interest. For which, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.
4. After knowing about the above sale deeds in respect of the
suit properties in favour of the vendors of the defendant Nos.1 & 2 as
well as the defendant Nos.1 & 2, the plaintiffs filed a petition under
O.6 R.17 of the CPC, 1908 praying for addition of the reliefs in their
suit for the declaration that, the sale deeds in respect of the suit
properties in favour of the vendors of the defendant Nos.1 & 2 as well
as defendant Nos.1 & 2 as void and also to amend their plaint relating
to their proposed additional prayers.
To which, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 (O.Ps in this CMP)
objected stating in their objection that, the proposed additional
prayers of the plaintiffs are barred by law of limitation and they
(plaintiffs) cannot amend their plaint on the basis of the W.S. of the
defendants.
5. After hearing from both the sides, learned Trial Court passed
the impugned order on dated 05.08.2023 rejecting the petition for
amendment of the plaint of the plaintiffs under O.6 R.17 of the CPC,
1908 assigning the reasons that,
"the plaintiffs cannot amend their plaint for addition of their
prayers relating to the declaration that, the sale deeds in
favour of the vendors of the defendant Nos.1 & 2 as well as in
favour of the defendant Nos.1 & 2 as void only after knowing
about the same from the written statement of the defendant
Nos.1 & 2."
6. On being dissatisfied with the above impugned refusal order,
the plaintiffs challenged the same by filing this CMP under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 being the petitioners against the
defendants arraying them as O.Ps. praying for quashing the impugned
order dated 05.08.2023 passed in C.S. No.107 of 2019 by the learned
Senior Civil Judge, Jajpur.
7. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the
petitioners (plaintiffs) and learned counsel for the O.P. Nos.1 & 2
(defendant Nos.1 & 2).
8. On the basis of the observations made in the impugned order
and the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the
crux of the CMP is that,
Whether the impugned order of refusal to the proposed
amendment sought for by the petitioners (plaintiffs) by the
learned Trial Court on the ground that, the petitioners
(plaintiffs) can not be allowed to amend their plaint for
addition of their prayers to declare that, the sale deeds
indicated in the written statement of the defendant Nos.1 & 2
in favour of the vendors as well as the defendant Nos.1 & 2
as void knowing about the same from the written statement of
the defendant Nos.1 & 2 is sustainable under law?
9. The aforesaid reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court for
the refusal of the prayer for amendment of the plaint of the plaintiffs
cannot be acceptable under law.
Because, it is the duty of a good judge to try always to put an
end to the litigation, but he should not pass such an order to grow a
suit out of a suit.
The main object of the provisions under O.6 R.17 of the
CPC, 1908 is to avoid the multiplicity of litigations between the
parties.
For which, the Court should always take its best endeavour
to try a suit for deciding all the controversies of the parties relating to
the said suit in that suit, but not to encourage them to be involved for
the same in separate litigations or suits.
10. When the plaintiffs came to know about the sale deeds in
favour of the vendors of the defendant Nos.1 & 2 as well as in favour
of the defendant Nos.1 & 2 in respect of the suit properties from the
written statement of the defendant Nos.1 & 2, then, they (plaintiffs)
filed petition under O.6 R.17 of the CPC, 1908 for amendment of
their plaint in order to include their additional prayers with their
original prayers for the declaration of the said sale deeds in favour of
the vendors of the defendant Nos.1 & 2 as well as in favour of the
defendant Nos.1 & 2 in respect of the suit properties as void.
11. Therefore, if they (plaintiffs) will not be allowed to amend
their plaint for the inclusion of their above additional prayers, then,
the controversies between the parties relating to the said prayers of
the plaintiffs arising out of the suit shall remain
unanswered/unattended, which shall encourage other litigations
between them (parties).
During the course of hearing of the CMP, the learned
counsel for the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 (defendant Nos.1 & 2) contended that,
the sale deeds in favour of the vendors of the defendant Nos.1 & 2 as
well as in favour of the defendant Nos.1 & 2 in respect of the suit
properties are much 3 years before the institution of the suit by the
plaintiffs and the prayer for amendment has been made by the
plaintiffs much 3 years after the execution of the said sale deeds, for
which, the above proposed additional prayers of the plaintiffs in
respect of the said sale deeds are barred by law of limitation.
12. The aforesaid contentions of the learned counsel for the O.Ps
(defendant Nos.1 & 2) can only be answered effectively in the suit, if
the issues relating to the said controversies shall be framed by the
learned Trial Court along with other issues and the said issues can be
answered properly after elicitation of evidence of the parties. For
which, the proposed amendment of the plaintiffs shall never cause
any prejudice to either parties, rather same will be in furtherance of
avoidance of multiplicity of litigations between the parties.
13. As per the discussions and observations made above, when it
is held that, the proposed amendment of the plaintiffs shall not cause
any prejudice to either parties rather the same will be in furtherance
of avoidance of multiplicity of litigations between the parties, then at
this juncture, the learned Trial Court should not have refused the
prayer for amendment of the plaintiffs, instead of which, the learned
Trial Court should have allowed the same either imposing some cost
or otherwise on the plaintiffs, but should not have refused the
proposed amendments of the plaintiffs.
14. Therefore, there is justification under law for making
interference with the impugned order passed by the learned Trial
Court through this CMP filed by the petitioners (plaintiffs).
15. As such, there is merit in this CMP of the
petitioners/plaintiffs. The same must succeed.
16. In result, this CMP filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs is
allowed.
The impugned order dated 05.08.2023 passed in C.S. No.107
of 2019 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jajpur is set aside.
The petition dated 23.06.2023 under O.6 R.17 of the CPC,
1908 of the petitioners (plaintiffs in the suit vide C.S. No.107 of
2019) is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,500/- (rupees two
thousand five hundred) by the petitioners/plaintiffs to the O.P. Nos.1
& 2 (defendant Nos.1 & 2).
17. As such, this CMP filed by the petitioners is disposed of
finally making it clear that, there shall be the issues relating to the
point of limitation in respect of the sale deeds in favour of the vendors
of the defendant Nos.1 & 2 as well as in favour of the defendant
Nos.1 & 2, to which, the plaintiffs are challenging along with other
issues by the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.107 of 2019
and the above imposed cost shall be paid by the plaintiffs to the
contesting defendant Nos.1 & 2 before the learned Trial Court after
receiving the record on or before the next date fixed by the learned
Trial Court and on filing of amended plaint, the defendants shall be
allowed to file their additional written statement challenging the
amendments of the plaintiffs.
18. The parties in this CMP are directed to appear on dated
10.04.2026 before the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.107
of 2019 for the purpose of receiving the directions of the learned Trial
Court as to further proceedings of the suit vide C.S. No.107 of 2019
on the basis of the observations made in this judgment.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
20.03.2026//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: UTKALIKA
NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of
Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 23-Mar-2026
11:14:52
