Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 17:56:52 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.M.P. No.1117 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)

Sri Srikanta Bandha and others …. Petitioners -versus-

Sri Nageswar Bandha and others …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioners : Mr. J. Barik, Advocate For Opposite Parties : None CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

19^th December 2025 B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. J. Barik, learned counsel for the Petitioners. No-one appears on call for the Opposite Parties despite the name of the lawyers is indicated in the cause list.

2. Present C.M.P. is directed against order dated 03.03.2025 of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Basudevpur passed in C.S. No.60 of 2018, wherein the prayer for amendment of the written statement by the Defendants 1 (ka) to 1(uan) has been refused.

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 17:56:52

3. It is seen that admittedly the suit is at pre-trial stage and as per the contention of the Petitioners issues are yet to be framed in the suit.

4. Present Petitioners are Defendants 1(ka) to 1(uan) and they have filed their written statement on 25.04.2019. It is true that by petition dated 11.09.2023, i.e. almost after four years, they seek to amend the written statement to introduce certain facts including the counter claim against the Plaintiffs.

5. As per the principles in the matter of amendment, the amendment should ordinarily be allowed unless it changes the nature and character of the suit or causes prejudice to the adverse party or withdrawing the admissions made by him earlier. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, (2022) 16 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-

“ 71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:

71.1. Order 2 Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order 2 Rule 2CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 17:56:52

71.2. All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order 6 Rule 17CPC.

71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed:

71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties.

71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side, and (c) the amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations).

71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless:

71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time-

barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration.

71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit.

71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or

71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence.

71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs.

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 17:56:52

71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to pin- pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be a