In partition suits, amendments to the plaint should be allowed unless they cause injustice or prejudice to other parties, promoting efficiency in resolving disputes.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. 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.15 of 2011) against the O.Ps (Defendants in the suit vide C.S. No.15 of 2011) praying for quashing (setting aside) the impugned order dated 27.12.2021 passed in C.S. No.15 of 2011 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar.

2. The factual backgrounds of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition, which prompted the Petitioner for filing of the same is that, the Petitioner being the Plaintiff filed the suit vide C.S. No.15 of 2011 against the O.Ps arraying them as Defendants in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar praying for partition of the suit properties.

In that suit for partition vide C.S. No.15 of 2011, after closure of evidence from the side of the Plaintiff, she (Plaintiff) filed a petition on dated 11.08.2021 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C., 1908 praying for inclusion/insertion of Plot No.267 Ac.0.550 dec. under Khata No.39 in Mouza Saharaposhi in the suit schedule properties for its partition along with the included suit properties between her (Plaintiff) and Defendants stating that, after the death of the recorded tenants thereof i.e. Sakuntala Sahu (Defendant No.11) and Taramani Sahu (Defendant No.12), the said properties vide Plot No.267 under Khata No.39 has become the joint properties of the Plaintiff and Defendants, for which, the same is liable to be partitioned along with other suit properties, because, they (Plaintiff and Defendants) are the successors of deceased Sakuntala Sahu and Taramani Sahu.

To which, the Defendants objected stating in their objection that, at the belated stage of the suit i.e. after closure of evidence from the side of the Plaintiff, such amendment sought for by the Plaintiff cannot be allowed, as during evidence from the side of the Plaintiff, the R.o.R. vide Khata No.39 has already been marked as Ext.10 and previously, same nature of application of the Petitioner has already been rejected. For which, the petition for amendment of the Plaintiff is liable to be rejected.

3. After hearing from both the sides, the learned Trial Court, as per impugned order dated 27.12.2021, rejected to the Petition dated 11.08.2021 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C, 1908 of the Plaintiff assigning the reasons that, “when the Plaintiff has not taken prompt step to amend the plaint for insertion of Plot No.267 under Khata No.39 in Mouza Saharaposhi for partition and when the evidence from the side of the Plaintiff has already been closed and when the documents on her behalf has already been exhibited, then at this stage, if the proposed amendment sought for by the Plaintiff will be allowed, the same will cause prejudice to the Defendants.”

4. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of rejection to the Petition dated 11.08.2021 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. of the Plaintiff passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar on dated 27.12.2021 in C.S. No.15 of 2011, she (Plaintiff) challenged the same by filing this CMP under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing (setting aside) the above impugned order dated 27.12.2021 passed in C.S. No.15 of 2011 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar.

5. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioner (Plaintiff) and the learned counsel for the O.P. Nos.3 to 10 (Defendant Nos.3 to 10).

6. In order to assail the impugned order, the learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the following decision:-

In a case between Dinesh Goyal @ Papu vs. Suman Agarw