A trial court must allow amendments to pleadings that facilitate complete adjudication of a case, provided no prejudice is caused to the opposing party and limitations can be addressed at trial.

ORDER :

K.R. MOHAPATRA, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Mr. Basu, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party Nos.1 and 7 also files Vakalatnama on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 in Court, which is taken on record. He also files an affidavit of Opposite Party No.7 stating that Opposite Party No.11-Mamata Parida has died issueless since 2021 and hence no substitution vide Opposite Party No.11 is necessary in this case.

3. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the name of Opposite Party No.11 may be deleted at the risk of Opposite Party Nos.1 to 7.

4. Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, name of Opposite Party No.11- Mamata Parida be deleted from the cause title at the risk of Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4 and 7.

5. Order dated 3^rd December, 2022 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2^nd Court, Cuttack in CS No.134/58 of 2008/2003 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby an application for amendment of the plaint filed by the Plaintiffs/Petitioners has been partly allowed. Petitioners in this CMP assail part of the order refusing amendment of the plaint.

6. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that CS No.58 of 2003 has been filed for declaration that the partition deed executed between Shyam Sundar and Radhu Parida is outcome of fraud and also for consequential relief. During pendency of the suit, Plaintiffs/Petitioners filed an application for amendment of the plaint to incorporate some of the Defendants as parties to the suit and in consequence to change the serial number of the proforma Defendants. A prayer for incorporation of the pleading with regard to validity of RSD No.1896 dated 30^th April, 1999 was also sought for. Further, a prayer to declare such sale deed as null and void was also sought for in the plaint by way of amendment. Learned trial Court, while allowing the prayer for impletion of parties and change of serial number of proforma Defendants rejected the prayer for amendment to incorporate foundational pleadings as well as prayer to declare the sale deed dated 30^th April, 1999 as null and void. Hence, this CMP has been filed.

6.1 Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs/Petitioners submits that learned trial Court rejected the amendment, as aforesaid on two grounds, more particularly that the amendment sought for is barred by limitation and it will take away the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. It is his submission that the question of limitation can be decided at the time of hearing by framing an additional issue. Validity of the sale deed dated 30^th April, 1999 depends upon the adjudication with regard to validity of the partition deed, which is under challenge. Instead of filing a separate suit, Plaintiffs/Petitioners sought for amendment of the plaint to save judicial time of the Court for adjudication of the lis between the parties. He further submits that only because the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court will be taken away by virtue of amendment of the plaint, that itself cannot be a ground to refuse the prayer. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order to the extent of rejecting amendment of the plaint and to permit the Petitioners to incorporate the proposed amendment as sought for.

7. Mr. Basu, learned counsel for Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4 and 7 vehemently objects the above submission. It is his submission that the sale deed in question was well within the knowledge of the Plaintiffs on the date of filing of the suit. The Plaintiffs also did not take any step