Consequential amendments in pleadings are mandatory when new facts are introduced by the opposing party, ensuring that all relevant issues are adequately adjudicated.

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 WILL dated 31.12.1988 executed in his favour in respect of the suit property. Defendant No.8 amended his written statement vide order dated 27.2.2004 and then again sought for amendment through his petition dated 10.01.2023. The said prayer made in his petition dated 10.01.2023 to amend the written statement was allowed in-part excluding withdrawal of admission regarding the Gift Deed, incorporation of the WILL and execution of the same in respect of the suit property. Learned trial court allowed the prayer for amendment in- part vide his order dated 06.03.2023. The rejection of part of the amendment sought to be incorporated in the petition dated 10.01.2023 was challenged before this Court in C.M.P. No.600 of 2025 and this Court (in a coordinate Bench) vide order dated 05.05.2025 allowed Defendant No.8 to amend his written statement in full as prayed by him in his petition dated 10.01.2023, at the admission stage without issuance of any notice to the Plaintiff. Resultantly, the written statement filed by Defendant No.8 was amended as per the order dated 05.05.2025 of this Court.

4. Thereafter since new facts were pleaded in the written statement by Defendant No.8 with regard to execution of the WILL by withdrawal of admission of gift so also the execution of the sale deed which were newly brought into the defence of Defendant No.8 through amendment of his written statement, the Plaintiff sought for consequential amendment in the plaint and to adduce further evidence to that effect. It needs to be mentioned here that consequent upon such amendment brought in the written statement of Defendant No.8, two additional issues were framed in the suit and by then the Plaintiff had already examined his witnesses and evidence from his side was closed. It is the contention of the Plaintiff that such amendment consequent upon the new facts brought in the written statement, is necessary on his part particularly when two new issues were framed. But the learned trial court rejected the prayer of amendment of the Plaintiff on the ground that the same is at belated stage and cannot be allowed as such.

5. Mr. S. Udgata, learned counsel for the Petitioner (Plaintiff) submits that in a matter of consequential amendment where the adverse party was allowed to bring certain new facts in his defence, it should not have been refused which is consequential in nature. He further submits that since a new right claimed by Defendant No.8 by virtue of execution of the WILL withdrawing his earlier admission regarding Gift Deed was allowed to be incorporated in the defence of Defendant No.8, it is essential on the part of the Plaintiff to bring consequential amendment in the plaint particularly when he has closed evidence from Plaintiff’s side.

6. Mr. P.K. Satapathy, learned counsel for