Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 17:58:40 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.M.P. No.1243 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)

Shantilata Patel and another …. Petitioners -versus-

Sakuntala Patel and others …. Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioners : Mr. B. Sahoo, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. A.P. Bose, Advocate For O.P. Nos.6 & 7 CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

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

1. Heard Mr. B. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr.

A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties 6 & 7.

2. Present C.M.P. is directed against the order dated 29.04.2025 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sundargarh passed in C.S. No.284 of 2013, wherein the prayer of the Plaintiffs to amend the plaint at a belated stage has been refused.

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 17:58:40

3. It is submitted by Mr. B. Sahoo, learned counsel for the Petitioners (Plaintiffs) that since another Willnama of the year 2011 has been relied on by the Defendants in their counter claim, the same is required to be pleaded by the Plaintiffs in order to sustain their claim and relief.

4. Conversely, it is submitted on behalf of Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties (Defendants) that, the counter claim was filed on 22.01.2017 and thereafter the Plaintiffs as well as other Defendants have led their evidences and last witness was examined on 17^th May 2023. But the Plaintiffs did not avail the opportunity to amend the plaint till then and so they cannot seek amendment of the plaint at such a belated stage in the year 2025 in order to answer the contentions regarding Willnama in the counter claim.

5. The principles with regard to the amendment as per the provisions in Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. have been well settled. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, (2022) 16 SCC 1, it has been held 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 Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 17:58:40 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. 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.

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Dec-2025 17:58:40

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 compe