Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT
SANTILATA PRUSTY – Appellant
Versus
NALINI SAHU – Respondent
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)
Amendments in civil suits for partition are to be allowed to ensure all issues are resolved, minimizing litigation unless they cause injustice or prejudice to the other party.
In partition suits, amendments to the plaint should be allowed unless they cause injustice or prejudice to other parties, promoting efficiency in resolving disputes.
Amendments to pleadings under the Civil Procedure Code should be permitted to minimize litigation, unless they cause injustice or prejudice to the opposing party.
Amendments to the plaint should be allowed to minimize litigation and ensure all issues are addressed, provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the opposing party.
Amendments to pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC must be allowed if necessary for justice without causing injustice to other parties; delays should be properly compensated.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC should be allowed if substantially required for the ends of justice, and the limited scope of ....
(1) Amendment of plaint – At stage of amendment, merits or correctness of plea sought to be added is not required to be gone into.(2) Amendment of plaint – Partition suit – Mere delay in filing petit....
Amendments to pleadings in partition suits should be liberally allowed to ensure justice and avoid multiplicity of proceedings, without assessing the merits of the amendment at the initial stage.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
