The main legal point established in the judgment is that amending an election dispute under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to correct an inherent mistake and extend the filing period is impermissible in the eye of the law, as it would alter the nature of the petition and extend the filing period, which is not allowed under the law.

JUDGMENT

Biswanath Rath, J. - This writ petition involves allowing an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure involving election dispute filed under the provisions of Orissa Gram Panchayat Act. Bringing the application, Mr.Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court to the nature of dispute involving an election petition contended once there is inherent mistake involving an election dispute inasmuch as claiming relief involving particular villages under Panchayat, there cannot be amendment entertainable replacing the villages under Panchayat which involved in the election dispute. Taking this Court to paragraph-4 of pleadings in the election dispute and reading through the same together with the proposed amendment available at page- 25 of the brief, Mr.Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that paragraph-4 discloses clear pleading that opposite party no.1 insisting 6 P.S. Members of particular villages such as Chandanpur Bari, Madhusudanpur, Ratalanga, Arangabad & Amathpur G.P., who were very much hale hearty on that day represented the E.O., that they are not capable to cast their votes but however by thus proposed amendment attempt is made by the election petitioner to change the name of the villages involving the Grama Panchayat. For such a drastic change, it is alleged attempt is made in the ection petition to change the nature and character of the dispute. Mr.Panda, learned counsel thus contested the allowing of amendment application.

2. Mr.Rath, learned counsel appearing for the contesting opposite party however taking to the nature of change through the proposed amendment contended that it is not a material defect prejudicing the case of the opposite party therein in the event such defect is cured. Mr.Rath, learned counsel further also contended that unless the proposed amendment is allowed, the effect of the election petition will go away and there will be automatic dismissal of the election petition depriving the election petitioner from his dispute exercise. Taking this Court to the proposed amendment and the observation of the trial court allowing such application, Mr.Rath, learned counsel contended that amendment being formal in nature has been rightly allowed requiring no interference by this Court.

Further in course of hearing, Mr.Rath, learned counsel contended that the petitioner was in doubt with regard to the name of the villages mentioned and the petitioner was still awaiting for the correct information through his attempt under the R.T.I. Act provisions. Mr. Rath, learned counsel thus contended the amendment was possible only after the information comes through the development under the R.T.I. application. To this submission of Mr.Rath, counsel for petitioner opposed the same saying that in the event petitioner was waiting for correct information on the villages involved, nothing prevented the petitioner to keep his scope of giving names of particular villages later on by bringing such disclosure through specific pleading.

3. Both parties relied on citations rendered in the case of Surekha Dash Vs. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jajpur & Ors, 1998 (II) OLR 43, Dibakar Patra Vs. Jatadhari Mishra & Ors, 2005 (II) OLR 628, Umaballav Rath Vs. Maheswar Mohanty & Ors, AIR 1997 Orissa 204 and in the case of Kalandi Mallik Vs. Sricharan Sethy & Ors.2007(Supp II) OLR 627.

4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds the moot question involved herein even assuming the election proceeding involved herein has the scope of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being considered, looking to the nature of amendment since attempted for correcting an inherent mistake, if permissible in the eye of law? This Court here takes into account the pleadings already exist the election petition in paragraph-4, which reads as follows:

'4) That while the voting process was going on unfortunately all on a sudden O.P.No.1 insisted six P.S. Members