Amendments to a plaint should generally be permitted unless they change the nature of the lawsuit or cause injustice to the opposing party, especially when the case is still at a preliminary stage.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. ROUTRAY, J.

1. Heard Mr. L.Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner.

2. No one appears on call for the Opposite Parties.

3. Present CMP is directed against order dated 20^th March 2025 passed in C.S.No.39 of 2023 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandikhole, wherein the prayer for amendment of the plaint sought by the Plaintiff has been rejected.

4. Present Petitioner is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit praying to declare R.S.D. No.3496 dated 23^rd December 1996 in respect of the suit schedule land as illegal and void and further, subsequent sales made by Defendant No.1 in respect of the suit land along as inoperative, for declaration of right title interest of the Plaintiff over the suit land and consequential reliefs. At the stage awaiting written statement from the side of Defendant No.1, the Plaintiff sought for amendment of the plaint as per the amendment petition dated 2^nd December 2024. In said amendment, the boundary of the land schedule is sought to be changed along with some other changes in the plaint averment and in the prayer portion of the plaint. But the learned Trial Court upon consideration of the same rejected the prayer for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the same will change the nature and character of the suit and it will change the pleadings of the Plaintiff entirely.

5. Before delving further into the merits of the challenge, it needs to be stated here about general principles regarding amendment of the plaint. In Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt.Ltd & Anr., 2022 SCC Online SC 1128 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

“71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:

71.1. Order 2 Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.

71.2. All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed:

71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties.

71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided

(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side,

(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side, and

(c) the amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless:

71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time-barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration.

71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit.

71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or

71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.

71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to pin- pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed.

71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach wit