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.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. ROUTRAY, J.

1. Heard Ms. S.S. Deo, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, Mr. P. Dash, learned Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 and Mr. P.K. Satapathy, learned Advocate for Opposite Parties 3, 4, 5(a) to 5(g).

2. Present C.M.P. is directed against the order dated 15.07.2025 of the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Talcher passed in T.S. No.58 of 2002, wherein the prayer of the Plaintiffs to amend the pleadings has been rejected.

3. Present Petitioners being the Plaintiffs filed T.S. No.58 of 2002 on 13^th June 2002. During the year 2008, they amended the plaint with the prayer as follows:-

“19. That the Plaintiffs, therefore, pray that:

(a) Plaintiffs' title in respect of the Schedule-A properties be declared as they have acquired exclusive title over the same on the basis of partition held in the year 1964.

(b) Let it be further declared that the Defendant No.1 and 2 had no legal right of executing registered sale deeds in favour of Paramananda Sahu. Pratap Kumar Behera and Suvendu Pradhan bearing Registered sale deeds No.231 dt.10.5.2005. sale deed No.252 dated 20.5.2005.and sale deed No. 1718 dt.20.4,2006 respectively covering the schedule-A lands and the Defendant No.1 and. 2 be permanently injuncted from alienating any property from Schedule-A lands.

(c) the cost of the suit may be decreed against the defendants.

(d) any other appropriate relief be granted to the Plaintiffs to which they may be found entitled.”

4. The suit was proceeded and the parties adduced their respective evidences. It is now posted for argument. While the matter stood thus, the Plaintiffs seek for amendment to the plaint and the schedule of amendment includes following in the prayer portion.

“19 (b). Alternatively Let the suit schedule properties be partitioned among the parties thereby allotting the 'A' Schedule land to the plaintiffs, the 'B' schedule land be allotted in favour of defendant No. 3,4 & 5a to 5g and the ‘C’ Schedule land be allotted to the defendant No.1 and 2.”

5. Besides the above, the Plaintiffs also seek to add more properties in the ‘C’ schedule of properties.

6. The prayer of the Plaintiffs for amendment was rejected by learned trial court on the ground that the Plaintiffs do not show due diligence on their part to bring such amendments earlier and secondly, the proposed amendment if would be allowed, will change the nature and character of the suit leading to de novo trial of the same.

7. Ms. S.S. Deo, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the suit having been filed prior to 1.7.2002, when the amended provision of Rule 17 under Order 6, C.P.C. came into force, such amended provision would not be a bar on the way of the Plaintiffs to justify due diligence on their part for getting amendment of the pleadings by operation of Section 16(2) of 2002 Amendment Act. She further contends that the observation of the trial court that the proposed amendment would change the nature and character of the suit leading to de novo trial is completely mis-conceived for the reason that the Plaintiffs though want to add the prayer for partition, but they did not bring any fresh cause of action to be incorporated in the plaint and their case would stand entirely on their legs based on the existing pleadings in the plaint. It is also submitted that the pleadings at paragraph 9, 10 & 13 of the plaint justify making the prayer on behalf of the Plaintiffs with regard to partition of the suit property since the Defendants have denied the fact of partition in their written statement. According to her, such amendment on the part of the Plaintiffs is