IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C. M.P. No.997 of 2025 Sanjib Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate -versus-

Dr. Kausalya Behera and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. D.K. Mishra, Advocate for O.P. No.1 CORAM:

JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

06.11.2025 Order No.

04. 1. Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that notice on Opposite Party No.2 has been made sufficient through the learned trial court in terms of the order dated 12.09.2025 of this Court.

2. Heard Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. D.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1.

3. Present C.M.P. is directed against order dated 18.06.2025 of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) (LR & LTV), Sambalpur passed in C.S. No.386 of 2015, wherein the prayer of Defendant No.8 to amend his written statement has been refused.

4. Present Petitioner is Defendant No.8 in the suit. Present Opposite Party No.1 is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit praying for partition in respect of suit schedule “A” and “B” properties. At the stage of taking of evidence from the side of the Plaintiff, Defendant No.8 sought to amend his written statement to incorporate the fact that certain properties belonging to the Signature Not Verified common ancestor has been left out and therefore, present properties mentioned in the suit is not the complete property of the joint family.

5. Learned trial court rejected the prayer of Defendant No.8 for amendment mainly on the ground that D.W.-8 did not ask any question with regard to inclusion of such properties in the joint family properties while cross-examining P.W.1 – the Plaintiff, and further he did not produce any document to prima facie satisfy that such properties do form part of joint family properties. 6. It needs to be reminded here that, Rule 17 of Order 6, C.P.C. requires to allow the prayer for amendment or reject the same, if it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, subject to the proviso contained in Rule 17. Thus, the Court has nothing to do with the merit of the pleading sought to be incorporated by way of amendment at the stage of consideration of amendment petition whether to allow the same or reject. Here it is found that the learned trial court has failed in discharging its duty while considering the application for amendment in terms of the principles engrafted in Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. As such, it is found imperative on the part of learned trial court to reconsider the prayer for amendment of Defendant No.8 afresh in terms of the principles envisaged in Order 6 Rule

17, C.P.C.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to learned trial court to consider the prayer of Defendant No.8 afresh on the question of amendment of written Signature Not Verified statement as prayed by him, granting opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

8. The C.M.P. is disposed of.

( B.P. Routray)

Judge B.K. Barik Signature Not Verified