The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendments to pleadings must be bona fide, necessary for effective adjudication, and should not cause prejudice to the other party.

JUDGMENT :

BISWANATH RATH, J.

1. This civil miscellaneous petition arises out of rejection of an application for amendment of the written statement by the trial Court at the stage of first appeal.

2. Assailing the impugned order, Sri Sahu, learned State Counsel taking this Court to the proposed amendment as well as the grounds therein attempted to satisfy this Court that the facts borne therein and sought to be brought as pleadings in the written statement by way of amendment, are all relevant for the purpose of effective adjudication of the suit and delay in filing such application should not stand as a bar in taking into consideration such aspect. It is alleged that the trial Court having failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter has arrived at an illegal and erroneous impugned order, which unless be interfered with and set aside, it may result in a bad principle of law.

3. Referring to decisions as reported in (1) AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2139 in the case of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (D) by L.Rs., (2) 2008 (II) OLR (SC)-511 in the case of P. Kunjukrishna Pillai & Anr. V. D. Sreekantan Naik & Ors. and (3) 2010 (II) OLR-381 in the case of Smt. Soudamini Chhotaray v. Surya Narayan Khuntia & others, Sri Sahu, learned State Counsel submitted that even after amendment of the provision at Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C the pleadings in the plaint or written statement can be amended following the decisions referred to hereinabove and it is under the circumstance, Sri Sahu, the learned State Counsel submitted that unless the impugned order is interfered with and set aside and the application under Order 6 Rule 17 is allowed, there may not be effective adjudication of the lis involved.

4. Sri B.P. Satapathy, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 on the other hand, opposing the submissions made by the learned State Counsel submitted that the Order 6 Rule 17 though permits a party to bring the amendment at any stage of the proceeding but the restrictions contained therein compulsory requires a party to satisfy the aspect that in spite of due diligence, the party was not in a position to bring such amendment during pendency of the suit. Sri Satapathy, thus referring to the amended provisions contained in Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C, contended that for the clear restrictions therein and for there being no disclosure in the application for amendment considered in the impugned order, regarding satisfaction of factum of due diligence and for the reasons assigned by the lower appellate Court, there is no infirmity in the impugned order leaving any scope to this Court for interfering with the same. Thus, Sri Satapathy, learned counsel prayed for rejection of the civil miscellaneous petition.

5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, admittedly the suit involved was filed in the year 2007. Similarly, there is no denial to the fact that amendment of the written statement was brought by the appellant in the first appellate stage. There is also no dispute on the proposition that amendment of the plaint or the written statement can be brought at any stage of the suit or in the 1st appeal stage or even in the 2nd appeal stage and all these stages includes the meaning of continuance of the proceeding. Keeping in mind the time of filing of application and taking into consideration the pleadings sought to be brought by way of amendment, the question arose here for consideration is as to whether the amendment sought for without satisfaction of the factum of due diligence and even in absence of any remote explanation even satisfying that the party was not in a position to bring such amendment during pendency of the suit in spite of all sincere efforts is required to be allowed? And if amendment at this stage of the proceeding will affect the adversary?

Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. as amended on 1.07.2002 reads as follows

Order 6

xxxxxx

“[17. Amendment of pleadings – The Court may at any stage of the p