The principle of res judicata prevents re-agitation of previously decided issues in subsequent applications, thus maintaining procedural integrity in litigation.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the correctness of the decision by order dated 24th December, 2024 as at Annexure-13 passed in connection with C.S. No.3275 of 2014 by learned 3rd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack, whereby, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment of the plaint as per Annexure-8 pressed into service by him has been declined on the grounds inter alia that the same is not tenable in law and hence, required to be interfered with in the interest of justice.

2. The opposite party instituted the suit against the petitioner for realization of a sum of Rs.1,17,700/-along with interest @ 12% per annum till such recovery and a decree of damage for Rs.50.000/- along with pendent lite and future interests over the entire amount with cost. A copy of the plaint is at Annexure- 1, according to which, the opposite party pleaded that she is a super stockiest, whereas, the petitioner to be a distributor and was liable to pay the outstanding dues in respect of the purchased items received between 10th April, 2010 and 4th December, 2010 and in that connection, had issued a cheque dated 17th May, 2011 to clear the same but it bounced back and for the same, a complaint in 1.C.C. No.636 of 2011 was filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act but was dismissed on 17th June, 2013, against which, CRLLP No. 124 of 2013 was filed and is pending disposal before this Court. It is further pleaded that the opposite party filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in the suit, to which, an objection was received and the same was 2nd April, 2019 at Annexure-4 thereby denying such amendment as was pleaded. Upon rejection of the amendment of the plaint, it is pleaded that the request to once again amend the same was received as per Annexure-8 with a plea that the same is necessary and is unlikely to change the nature and the character of the suit but before that, another application under Order 6 Rule 16 CPC was moved to strike out a particular wofrom para-3 and 6 of the plaint, however, it stood denied by order dated 16th May, 2019 as at Annexure-7. According to the petitioner, since such an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed as per Annexure- 8, the same was also received with an objection from the side of the petitioner. A copy of the said objection is at Annexure-9. The petitioner pleaded that the earlier amendment for the self-same relief was denied vide Annexure-4 and the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was rejected too on 16th May, 2019 (Annexure-7), so the amendment of the plaint once more with a similar relief could not have been entertained as it was filed to get over the limitation but was followed by an order dated 2nd August, 2022 at Annexure-10 and the same was challenged in CMP No.926 of 2022 disposed of on 8th December, 2022 to freshly consider such an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. A copy of the said order is at Annexure-11. The petitioner pleaded that an application under Order 11 Rules 1 & 4 CPC at the instance of the opposite party was received by learned Court below to grant him the leave to deliver interrogatories to the petitioner for a reply and it was disposed of on 19th November, 2019 a the same was also rejected and during the interregnum, the amendment of the plaint was moved but at last, it was followed by Annexure-11 for a direction to reconsider and ultimately, it has led to passing of the impugned order i.e. Annexure-13, whereby, the amendment was allowed vide Annexure-13. The contention of the petitioner is that learned Court below ought not to have allowed such an amendment of the plaint when all