Amendments to pleadings after trial commencement require justification of delay and due diligence; lack of valid reasons leads to rejection to prevent prejudice.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. V. Jena, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Mohanty, learned Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1.

2. Present C.M.P. is directed against the impugned order dated 13.5.2025 of the learned Senior Civil Judge (LR & LTV), Balasore passed in C.S. No.925 of 2020-I, wherein the prayer for amendment of the written statement by the Defendant No.4 has been rejected.

3. The Plaintiff, who is present Opposite Party No.1, filed the suit praying for partition. The suit is now at the stage of adducing evidence from the side of the Defendants and the Plaintiff has closed his evidence. Some of the Defendants’ witnesses have also been examined in the meantime. At this stage, Defendant No.4 filed a petition dated 29.4.2025 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. praying for amendment of the WS to incorporate certain facts regarding sale of portion of the ancestral property and relinquishment on the part of the daughter of the common ancestors. Learned trial court rejected the prayer for amendment stating that the property which has been sold by the common ancestors prior to filing of the suit need not be included in the suit property and secondly, the grounds stated by the Defendants are baseless and devoid of merit.

4. As seen from the schedule of amendment sought for by Defendant No.4 in his petition dated 29.4.2025, he wants to incorporate certain facts at paragraph 3, 7 and other parts of his written statement as detailed out in the impugned order. The prayer for amendment was objected by the Plaintiff as well as rest of the Defendants.

5. Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. permits the trial court to allow the party to alter or amend the pleadings as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy, provided that the same could not be brought by the party in spite of due diligence.

6. As seen in the instance case, the Defendant No.4 has prayed for incorporation of such facts that were not come into existence recently pending the suit nor it was the statement of the Defendant No.4 that the same were not in his knowledge at the time of filing of the WS. The fact that the balance property mentioned in the amendment petition was already sold by the father of the parties as Karta of undivided family and moreover no dispute with regard to such sale is raised by any of the parties. Thus, as stated by the learned trial court that the fact of sale of such lands which remains undisputed by all the parties is not necessary to be brought on record, is found without any fault. So, it is seen that the amendments in respect of the sale of the property by the Karta during his life time is not necessary for determining the controversy in issue between the parties.

7. It is submitted by Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the Petitioner that, the fact of relinquishment of share by the sisters or lady members of the family in respect of the suit property upon receipt of the amount out of the sale consideration money, has not at all been considered by the learned trial court while refusing the prayer for amendment.

8. It needs to be answered here that this is not a fact that came to the knowledge of the Defendant No.4 after filing of his WS, which otherwise mean that it was within the knowledge of Defendant No.4 earlier also. The restriction as imposed in Rule 17 of Order 6 of the C.P.C. with regard to excuse regarding due diligence by the party, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Revanna v. Anjanamma , (2019) 4 SCC 332 , have held that;

“7. Leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent case, or challenges the fundamental character of the suit. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC