Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Dec-2025 13:20:31 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.M.P. No.1717 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)

Kuni Sahani and others …. Petitioners -versus-

Basanta Kumari Mohanty and …. Opposite Parties others Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioners : Mr. B. Senapati, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. P.K. Bhuyan, Advocate For O.P. Nos.1 to 3 CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

23^rd December 2025 B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Senapati, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. P.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for Opposite Parties 1 to 3.

2. Present C.M.P. is directed against order dated 09.10.2025 of learned Nyayadhikari Gram Nyayalaya, Brahmagiri passed in T.S. No.167 of 1995, wherein the prayer for amendment in the suit schedule land has been allowed at the stage of argument.

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Dec-2025 13:20:31

3. Present Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are the Plaintiffs, who filed the suit praying for recovery of possession and permanent injunction. The dispute between the Plaintiffs and Defendants in the suit is regarding a patch of land lying in between their respective lands, i.e. Plot No.1602 and 1603. Admittedly, Plot No.1602 belongs to the Plaintiffs and Plot No.1603 belongs to the Defendants. A stretch of land (hereinafter referred as ‘disputed land’) in between Plot Nos.1602 and 1603 is the subject matter of dispute upon which both the parties claim their possession. Accordingly, a Survey Knowing Commissioner was deputed, who submitted his report. While cross-examining the said Survey Knowing Commissioner, it came to surface that he measured the plots by referring to corresponding consolidation map and consolidation plots. At such stage, the amendment was sought by the Plaintiffs to insert corresponding plot number in respect of the suit schedule Plot No.1602, which was allowed by the learned trial court.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioners (Defendants) that, once the reference is made in the suit and written statement regarding Major Settlement Plot Number and Map, insertion of corresponding plot number according to consolidation operation in respect of Plaintiffs’ land alone, it would affect right of the Defendants since no Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Dec-2025 13:20:31 material has been produced as to the comparison of the settlement map and consolidation map, that too at the stage of argument.

5. The Plaintiffs have not stated anything in their petition for amendment (Annexure-4) with regard to the reason of inserting the consolidation plots at this stage except mentioning that the consolidation RoR was published in the year 2001-02.

6. It is seen that in the schedule of the suit, the lands of the Plaintiffs and Defendants have been referred as major settlement plots and khata numbers and the map furnished in the schedule of land also speaks of MS Plot No.1602 and 1603. Therefore, it is obvious that the map as furnished in the schedule of the suit is relating to major settlement operation. It is required to be noticed here that in the matter of amendment under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C., the amendment should ordinarily be allowed unless the same changes the nature and character of the suit or causes prejudice to the adverse party or it withdraws the earlier admissions.

7. In Chakreshwari Construction (P) Ltd. v. Manohar Lal, (2017)

5 SCC 212, it has been observed as follows:-

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Dec-2025 13:20:31 “13. The principle applicable for deciding the application made for amendment in the pleadings remains no more res integra and is laid down in several cases. In Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons [Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84 : (2009) 4 SCC (Civ) 37] , this Court, after examining the entire previous case law on the subject, culled out the following pri