Amendments to pleadings should not change the nature of the suit or prejudice the other side; due diligence must be shown when seeking amendments.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. L. Sarangi, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.

2. Present CMP is directed against order dated 14^th August, 2025 of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nayagarh passed in C.S. No.69 of 2020, wherein the prayer to amend the suit schedule property at the instance of the Plaintiffs has been allowed.

3. Present Petitioner is the defendant and Opposite Parties are the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed the suit praying to declare their right, title, interest over the suit schedule property along with their possession over the same and to permanently restrain the defendant from disturbing their peaceful possession over the suit property. It is important here to reproduce the suit schedule property. Initially the suit schedule property was as follows:-

Then it was amended by the plaintiffs at the admission stage to delete Plot No.1298/4028 measuring Ac.0.050 dec. and correcting the area to Ac.0.150 dec. in Plot No.1298. So after first amendment the suit schedule property remains as follows:-

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PROPERTY

Dist.- Nayagarh, Mouza : Lenkudipada, Khata No.643/22

Plot No.1298, Area : Ac.0.150 dec.

4. The suit then proceeded and reached at the stage of argument. At this stage the plaintiffs again seek to amend the suit schedule property as Khata No.495, Plot No.1295/2825, area Ac.0.150 dec.

5. It is submitted by Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the defendant that allowing the prayer of amendment to the suit schedule property at the stage of argument would change the nature and character of the suit since the claim of the plaintiffs and defendant’s defense in respect of present plot No.1295/2825 is completely different from the claim over Plot No.1298. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs did not explain the due diligence on their part for not bringing the amendment in time.

6. Mr. Sarangi, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits on the contrary that unless the prayer for amendment sought by the plaintiffs is allowed there would be multiplicity of proceedings. It is further submitted by him that the actual plot number was unknown to the plaintiffs at the beginning stage until the plaintiffs could get a copy of the RoR of the suit plot.

7. The principles with regard to amendment in terms of Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. has been well settled in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another , (2022) 16 SCC 1 , wherein it has been held as follows:-

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

71.1. Order 2 Rule 2CPC 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 2CPC 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 17CPC.

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 ot