Amendments to pleadings under the Civil Procedure Code should be permitted to minimize litigation, unless they cause injustice or prejudice to the opposing party.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA

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.200 of 2019) against the Opposite Parties praying for quashing(setting aside) an order dated 27.04.2023 (Annexure-7) passed in Civil Suit No.200 of 2019 by the learned Senior Civil Judge(LR & LTV), Nayagarh.

2. The factual backgrounds of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the petitioner being the sole plaintiff filed the suit vide C.S. No.200 of 2019 against the Opposite Parties arraying them as defendants praying for declaration of the Sale Deed No.465 dated 12.04.2010 in favour of the defendant no.1 and the RoR in respect of the suit properties as null and void and the same are not binding upon her(plaintiff).

In that suit, after completion of the pleadings of the parties, the plaintiff filed a petition on dated 02.03.2021 under Order-6, Rule-17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 praying for amendment of the plaint in order to insert that,

“while she(plaintiff) was aged about three years, she was adopted by the original owner of the suit properties in the year 1961 and the defendant no.2 was not adopted by the original owner of the suit properties, i.e., Artabandhu Prusty and his wife Sundarmani Prusty and she(plaintiff) is the sole successor of the original owner of the suit properties being his adopted daughter, in which, the defendant no.2 has no interest along with some other averments relating to the absence of interest of the defendants in the suit properties.”

To which, the defendants objected stating in their objection that, the proposed amendment sought for by the plaintiff after disclosure of the defence by them(defendants) in their respective written statements are only in order to defeat/nullify the stands taken by them(defendants), which cannot be allowed at this belated stage on the ground that, the plaintiff had not taken such stands in her plaint initially, for which, she(plaintiff) is precluded under law to insert the proposed amendments in her plaint after disclosure of their pleadings in their respective written statements. Therefore, the petition dated 02.03.2010 under Order-6, Rule- 17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected.

3. After hearing from both the sides, learned Senior Civil Judge(LR & LTV), Nayagarh as per the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 rejected to the major parts of the above proposed amendments sought for by the plaintiff, but, allowed some minor portions thereof subject to payment of cost of Rs.400/-(rupees four hundred) assigning the reasons that,

“the plaintiff(petitioner) has prayed for amendments, for no other reason, but, only in order to patch up the lacunas of her plaint.”

4. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid part rejection to the petition dated 02.03.2021 under Order-6, Rule-17 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 of the plaintiff by the learned Senior Civil Judge(LR & LTV), Nayagarh, she(plaintiff) challenged the same by filing this Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 against the defendants arraying them as Opposite Parties praying for quashing(setting aside) the same.

5. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner (plaintiff) and the leaned counsel for the Opposite Parties(defendants).

6. It is undisputed case of the parties that, the petitioner filed the suit vide C.S. No.200 of 2019 against the Opposite Parties praying for declaration of the Sale Deed No.465 dated 12.04.2010 executed in favour of th