Subsequent amendments to pleadings are permissible under the law, but courts must ensure they do not change the fundamental nature of the case or abuse judicial process.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The Petitioner in this CMP seeks to assail the order dated 2nd May, 2016 (Annexure-7) passed in Civil Suit No.457 of 2012, whereby learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri allowed an application filed by the Plaintiffs-Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint.

3. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel submits that Defendant No.2 is the Petitioner in this CMP. The Plaintiffs filed the suit for recovery of possession and other allied reliefs. After filing of the written statement by the Defendants, the Plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint, which was allowed vide order dated 24th October, 2014 under Annexure-7. Subsequently, in absence of any cause of action, the Plaintiffs filed another application for amendment of the plaint to incorporate certain new facts and description to the suit property along with a prayer to seek for relief of declaration of right, title and interest. Learned trial Court vide order dated 2nd May, 2016 allowed the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which has changed the nature and character of the suit. No reason has been assigned in the petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC as to why the Plaintiffs filed a subsequent application for amendment of the plaint when the plaint had already been amended before one and half years. Although trial of the suit had not commenced by the time the petition for amendment was entertained, but that does not give a right to the Plaintiffs to file repeated applications for amendment of the plaint. Although the suit was filed for recovery of possession, but by virtue of amendment, the Plaintiffs converted it to a suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit property. They also inserted certain new properties to the suit, which has changed the foundation of the suit itself. Good reason has not been assigned by learned trial Court while allowing the petition for amendment. Only reiterating the amendment sought for by the Plaintiffs, the petition for amendment was allowed without considering the objection filed by the Petitioner-Defendant No.2. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-7.

4. Mr. Gajendra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Plaintiffs-Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 submits that in the meantime, the evidence from the side of the Plaintiffs has already been closed on the basis of the amended plaint. The suit is now posted for evidence of the Defendants. At this stage, the impugned order should not be interfered with. He further submits that the amendment is merely clarificatory and explanatory in nature. To give a clarification to the suit property, the Plaintiffs sought for inserting the boundaries of the suit property through sketch map. Since the Defendants disputed right, title and interest of the Plaintiffs over the suit property, a prayer to that effect was also sought to be incorporated. There is no bar to entertain a second application for amendment of the plaint when the first one has already been allowed. The first application for amendment was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.400/-. However, due to oversight, the prayer for declaration of right, title and interest could not be sought for and before going to the trial, the Plaintiffs thought it proper to give clarity to the description of the suit property by providing boundaries. Thus, learned trial Court has committed no error in allowing the application for amendment.

5. Heard learned counsel for th