Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P. ROUTRAY
Laxminarayan Maharana – Appellant
Versus
Mst. Kishori Maharana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. role of defendant no.8's amendments in the case. (Para 3) |
| 2. court's reasoning for allowing amendments based on new facts. (Para 4 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. consequential amendment arguments from both parties. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. general principles of amendment in pleadings. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. final decision to allow amendments and dispose cases. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
B.P. ROUTRAY, J.
1. Heard Mr. S. Udgata, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. P.K. Satapathy, learned Advocate for Opposite Party No.8 in both the petitions.
2. Both the C.M.Ps. being arise out of two orders dated 10.07.2025 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Jharsuguda passed in C.S. No.2/86 of 2002-2004 on same day, one dealing with prayer for amendment and another rejecting the prayer for further evidence, which is consequential to the order on amendment, are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Present Petitioner, in both cases, is the Plaintiff and Opposite Party No.8 is the Defendant No.8 in the suit. The suit has been filed praying for partition and other consequential reliefs. Defendant No.8 initially filed his written statement denying the claim of the Plaintiff by virtue of the W
Consequential amendments in pleadings are mandatory when new facts are introduced by the opposing party, ensuring that all relevant issues are adequately adjudicated.
Amendments to pleadings are allowed to avoid injustice but cannot permit withdrawal of admissions that would prejudice the opposite party or alter the nature of the suit.
Amendments to pleadings cannot withdraw clear admissions made earlier, as it would be prejudicial to the opposing party; such amendments must align with the CPC regulations.
Failures in due diligence and attempts to withdraw admissions in pleadings preclude amendments in civil suits post-evidence closure.
Amendments to pleadings are permissible to clarify disputes provided they do not alter the case's nature or introduce new causes of action; otherwise, they may lead to a de novo trial.
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC should be allowed if necessary for determining real issues, provided they do not cause injustice to the other party.
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC should be allowed if necessary for justice and do not change the nature of the suit.
The judgment establishes the principle that while clarificatory amendments to pleadings may be allowed, attempts to withdraw admissions and set forth an entirely new case through amendments are imper....
Amendments to pleadings after trial commencement require justification of delay and due diligence; lack of valid reasons leads to rejection to prevent prejudice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
