The main legal point established in the judgment is the wide power and unfettered discretion of the court to allow amendments of written statements under Order 6, rule 17 of C.P.C, and the principle that courts exist to decide the rights of parties and not to punish them for mistakes.

JUDGMENT :

Biswanath Rath, J.

1. This matter arises out of an order dated 4.02.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gunupur in Civil Suit No. 54/2004 thereby rejecting an application for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order-6, rule-17 of C.P.C.

2. Short fact involved in this case is that the opposite parties as plaintiffs filed the suit seeking a relief for permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioner restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and for such other reliefs as the Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.

3. Following service of notice the present petitioner filed a written statement on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 & 3. During pendency of the suit the petitioner-defendants filed an application under Order 6, rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment of the following paragraphs:

"After Para No. 11 the following the Para is to be added.

That the defendant No. 1 is in peaceful continuous possession over the entire lands which are within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint by the plaintiff since his fore-fathers till today with the knowledge of one and all of the locality including the plaintiff as such even otherwise the defendant No. 1 have prescribed his right title over the suit schedule property which are within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint by their uninterrupted continuous possession in assertion of his own right since his grant fathers time till-today and the plaintiff has lost his title if any.

That at the prayer portion after para No. 2 following Para is to be added.

To declare the right title and possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No. 1 within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint by adverse possession."

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, the trial Court by the impugned order rejected the application at the instance of the petitioner-defendant on the premises that the petition for amendment of written statement cannot be allowed at that stage of the suit and it further held that the petition has been filed to delay the disposal of the suit as well as creating a new case.

4. Mr. A.K. Nanda, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial had not commenced by the time of filing of the amendment application. The rejection vide the impugned order was against the settled principle of law, the Trial Court failed in appreciating the provision contained in Order 6 rule 17 of the C.P.C. Further the trial Court also failed in appreciating the settled position of law permitting raising of inconsistent pleas and taking away the admission in the interest of justice as well.

5. On his appearance Mr. C.A. Rao, learned senior advocate for the opposite parties submitted that in view of the specific pleading in the written statement, the attempt of the petitioner taking away the admissions was impermissible in the eye of law. Further the petitioners could not have been permitted to raise an inconsistent plea by way of amendment and in the event, any such permission is granted, there would be vital shifting in the admission of the petitioners in their written statement. It is in these premises, Mr. Rao, learned senior advocate contended that the order of the trial Court is justified.

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of both parties.

6. From perusal of the pleading of the petitioners in their written statement filed in the trial Court, the petitioners had a clear pleading vide Paragraph Nos. -2, 3 & 11 which reads as follows:

"2. That the allegation made in Para No. 4 (f) and (ii) of the plaint of the plaintiff are true. It is a fact that the plaintiff has got lands at Gopalpur Mouza which stands recorded in the name of his late father Ladi Sanyasi under Khata No. 51/108, Plot No. 140/360, Ac. 1.36 cents, Plot No. 141/361, Ac. 0.64 cents, Plot No. 141/362, Ac. 2.00, Plot No. 4/363/415. Ac. 1.93 cents total extent of Ac. 5.93 cents.

3. That