Amendments to pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC must be allowed if necessary for justice without causing injustice to other parties; delays should be properly compensated.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner (Plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.501 of 2013) against the O.Ps (Defendants in the suit vide C.S. No.501 of 2013) praying for quashing (setting aside) the impugned order dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-5) passed in C.S. No.501 of 2013 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kendrapara.

2. The factual backgrounds of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition, which prompted the Petitioner for filing of the same is that, the Petitioner being the Plaintiff filed the suit vide C.S. No.501 of 2013 against the O.Ps (arraying them as Defendants) praying for declaration that, the sale deed dated 06.09.2013 said to have been executed by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of Defendant No.3 in respect of the suit properties as illegal and collusive and to injunct the Defendants permanently from entering into the suit property.

Having been noticed from the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.501 of 2013, the Defendants filed their joint written statement denying the allegations alleged by the Plaintiff against them taking their stands that, the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the lawful owners and in possession over the suit properties and they (Defendant Nos.1 and 2) have sold the same to the Defendant No.3 through R.S.D. dated 06.09.2013, for which, the Plaintiff has no right, title, interest and possession over the same. Therefore, the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. .

3. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the Parties, issues were framed and trial was commenced in the suit vide C.S. No.501 of 2013.

After closure of the evidence from the side of the Plaintiff, when, the suit was fixed for evidence from the side of the Defendants, the defendants file a petition on dated 24.09.2015 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 praying for amendment of their written statement in order to insert some Paras in the written statement concerning their title in the suit properties on the basis of R.S.D. No.126 of 1936, to which, he (Defendant No.1) got from his old “Sinduka”.

4. To which, the Plaintiff objected on the ground that, after closure of evidence from his side, the proposed amendment sought for by the Defendants cannot be allowed. If, the proposed amendment of the Defendants will be allowed, the same shall cause serious prejudice to him (Plaintiff). For which, the Petition under order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. of the Defendants is liable to be rejected.

5. After hearing from both the sides, as per order dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-5), the learned Trial Court allowed that Petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C, 1908 of the Defendants on dated 24.09.2015 and allowed the Defendants to amend their written statement subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/- (Five hundred) to the Plaintiff assigning the reasons that, “the prayer for amendment of the written statement of the Defendants should not be considered with the same rigor and strictness as the amendment sought for by the Plaintiff for the amendment of its plaint and the delay in filing of the proposed amendment may be compensated by way of cost against the Defendants”.

6. On being dissatisfied with the said impugned order dated 08.12.2015 (Annexure-5) passed in C.S. No.501 of 2013, the Plaintiff challenged the same by filing this CMP under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 pr