Amendments to plaint may be permitted under Order 6 Rule 17 to avoid multiplicity of litigation, even if they arise after the knowledge of certain facts, provided they do not prejudice the opposing party.

JUDGMENT  :

A.C.BEHERA, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing (setting aside) the impugned order dated 05.08.2023 passed in C.S. No.107 of 2019 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jajpur.

2. The factual backgrounds of this CMP, which prompted the petitioners for filing of the same is that, the petitioners being the plaintiffs filed the suit vide C.S. No.107 of 2019 against the O.Ps arraying them (O.Ps) as defendants praying for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties, to declare that, they (defendants) have no manner of right, title, interest and possession in the suit properties, to declare that, the recording of the name of the defendant No.3 in respect of the suit properties in the Hal R.o.R. is wrong and illegal and to pass a decree for eviction against the defendant Nos.1 & 2 directing them (defendant Nos.1 & 2) to vacate the suit properties and to deliver the possession of the same to the plaintiffs stating in their plaint that, they (plaintiffs) are the successors of Gadadhar Sahoo, being his two daughters. The suit properties were the self-acquired properties of their father Gadadhar Sahoo, but unfortunately, the R.o.R. thereof was prepared alone in the name of the defendant No.3 (Paramananda Sahoo). When the defendant Nos.1 & 2 created disturbances in their possession in the suit properties, then they (plaintiffs) filed the suit vide C.S. No.107 of 2019 against the defendants seeking the above reliefs.

3. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.107 of 2019, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 filed their joint written statement taking their stands that, Gadadhar Sahoo, Sadananda Sahoo and Bidyadhar Sahoo being the three sons of Purusottam Sahoo, they were three brothers and while they (three brothers) were living in joint mess and property, they had acquired properties individually. Gadadhar Sahoo had purchased the suit properties from one Anam Kar through RSD No.6270 dated 28.08.1950. The said Gadadhar Sahoo died leaving behind his two daughters i.e. Sanjulata and Manjulata i.e. plaintiffs as his successors. After the death of Gadadhar Sahoo, his two daughters i.e. plaintiffs along with their uncles i.e. Sadananda Sahoo and Bidyadhar Sahoo were possessing the suit properties as their joint properties. For the marriages of the plaintiffs, their uncles i.e. Sadananda and Bidyadhar sold the suit properties to one Babula Sahoo on dated 09.08.1985. Babula Sahoo sold the same to the defendant No.3 through R.S.D. No.819 dated 08.09.1989. The defendant No.3 sold the suit properties to the defendant Nos.1 & 2. Therefore, they (defendant Nos.1 & 2) are the owners and in possession over the suit properties, in which, the plaintiffs have no interest. For which, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.

4. After knowing about the above sale deeds in respect of the suit properties in favour of the vendors of the defendant Nos.1 & 2 as well as the defendant Nos.1 & 2, the plaintiffs filed a petition under O.6 R.17 of the CPC, 1908 praying for addition of the reliefs in their suit for the declaration that, the sale deeds in respect of the suit properties in favour of the vendors of the defendant Nos.1 & 2 as well as defendant Nos.1 & 2 as void and also to amend their plaint relating to their proposed additional prayers.

To which, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 (O.Ps in this CMP) objected stating in their objection that, the proposed additional prayers of the plaintiffs are barred by law of li