JUDGMENT

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.: The plaintiff-petitioner has filed this application assailing the order dated 13.1.2006 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in C.S No.63/367 of 2005/2002 rejecting the application filed for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

2. The epitome of the fact of the case is that the plaintiff-petitioner filed C.S No. 63/367 of 2005/2002 before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar seeking for cancellation of the registered sale deed No.411/02 dated 30.3.2002 executed before the Registering Authority, Balipatna by the defendant-Opposite Party No.1 in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and for a direction to retransfer the suit property of the plaintiff-petitioner on receipt of the consideration amount paid by him through RSD No. 411 of 2002.

3. Banchhanidhi Nayak had three sons, namely, Dibakr, Banambar and Bhramara. The three brothers were separate in mess and Banambar shifted to another ancestral house at Plot No. 901 and Dibakar and Bhramara stayed in the ancestral house over Plot No. 904 in the same village in a joint mess. Although Dibakar had adopted Satyabadi @ Gagan, he did not stay with Dibakar and daughter of Bhramara i.e. Gunjanbala and her husband Satrughana looked after Dibakar and his wife Surati who were residing with Bhramara in the said house. Gagan @ Satyabadi sold house property in his share at plot No. 904 to Bauri, Gangadhar and Buludhar, the three sons of Jayaram Nayak by Regd. Sale Deed No. 411 dated 30.03.2002. Therefore, Bhramar, the present plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit for cancellation of the sale deed and for a direction to the purchasers to retransfer the suit property to him.

4. On being noticed, the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement specifically stating that Gagan @ Satyabadi, adopted son of Dibakar and his vendees, Bhramara shifted to another house in the village abandoning the house over plot No. 904 leaving it to be enjoyed by Dibakar although the plot No. 904 was jointly recorded in the name of Bhramara and Dibakar. The landed properties were also enjoyed separately by a mutual partition and after death of Dibakar, Gagan @ Satyabadi sold the properties falling in his share vide Registered Sale Deed Nos.983 dated 22.06.1999 and 984 dated 22.06.1999 without any objection from either Bhramara or Banambar. Thereafter, Gagan @ Satyabadi sold the house property in his share at Plot No. 904 to Bauri, Gangadhar and Buludhar, the three sons of Jayaram Nayak by Registered Sale Deed No. 411 dated 30.03.21002 and pleaded that the three brothers namely Dibakar, Banambar and Bhramara were separated in mess and properties by a mutual partition and that Gagan @ Satyabadi sold and delivered possession of the suit house to the purchasers and they have mutated the land house in their favour after purchasing the same.

5. When the suit was ready for hearing, the plaintiff-petitioner having realized that certain facts have not been specifically pleaded in the plaint, which have bearing on the merits of the case, filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC for the amendment of the plaint vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In the said amendment application the plaintiff-petitioner wanted to incorporate some new facts which were not made available earlier. Then defendants 2 to 4 filed objection to such amendment on the ground that the proposed amendment changes the very nature and character of the plaint and intended to protract the litigation for years together without proceeding with the case for disposal. As such, there is no just cause to file application for amendment at such belated stage particularly when the case is immature for trial. The proposed amendment is not necessary in the ends of justice and for the purpose of determination of the controversies or issues.

6. Learned Trial Court upon hearing the parties, rejected the said application under Order-6, Rule 17 CPC for am