Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Ori) 722

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA, J.
Smt. Korada Bharati - Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Pranayani Sahoo and Another - Opposite Parties
C.M.P. No.870 of 2023
Decided On : 30-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. B. Bhuyan, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate, Mr. P.K. Nayak, Advocate.

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.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order-6, Rule-17 - Amendment of plaint - Plaintiff sought amendment after disclosure of defendants’ pleadings - Major portions of amendment denied citing timing as belated - Court emphasized that amendments should not impede justice and prioritize litigation efficiency. (Paras 2-12)

(B) Amendments - The court recognized amendments should ordinarily be allowed to avoid multiplicity and ensure all issues are addressed in one proceeding, provided they do not cause injustice or prejudice to the other party. (Paras 7-9)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff challenged the rejection of her amendment petition regarding her adoption and claim over suit properties and sought declarations against the validity of a sale deed affecting her inheritance.

Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the plaintiff's petition, allowing her to amend her plaint in full while stipulating costs.

Issues: The primary questions involved the necessity of the amendment and the implications of the timing of the request.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the learned Senior Civil Judge's partial rejection of the plaintiff's amendment was unjustified, as the proposed changes would not prejudice the defendants and were aimed at minimizing litigation.

Result: Civil Miscellaneous Petition allowed in full.

Table of Content
1. challenge to order on plaint amendment. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. arguments on proposed plaint amendments. (Para 3 , 5 , 8)
3. legal considerations for amendment of plaint. (Para 6 , 7 , 9)
4. justification for interference with court order. (Para 10)
5. allowing the civil miscellaneous petition. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

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 the d