Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack

Date: 14-Oct-2025 11:50:07

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CMP No.483 of 2025

(In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India)

Smt. Jayantilata Jena …. Petitioner

-versus-

Radhakrushna Barik … Opposite Party

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioner : Ms. P.S. Mohanty, Advocate. For Opp. Party : Mr. B. Mohapatra, Advocate.

CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

9^th October, 2025

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Ms. P.S. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and

Mr. B. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party.

2. Present Petitioner who is the Plaintiff in C.S. No.215/289 of 2022, pending in the court of learned 2^nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Balasore challenges order dated 4^th March, 2025 of the trial

court refusing her prayer to amend the pleadings.

Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 14-Oct-2025 11:50:07

3. The Plaintiff by way of amendment through her petition dated 21^st October, 2024 sought to amend the description of suit schedule plots on the ground of inadvertent typographical mistake. Such prayer of the Plaintiff was rejected by the trial court on the ground that she failed to explain due diligence on her part in bringing the amendment in time vide impugned order dated 4^th March, 2025.

4. The suit was for demarcation, permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs.

5. It is seen from the amendment petition filed under Annexure-3 that the schedule of proposed amendment is almost the same as suit schedule A and B property. In the original plaint schedule „A‟ property is Plot No.308 measuring Ac.0.01 dec., Plot No.309 measuring Ac.0.24 dec., Plot No.310 measuring Ac.0.08 dec., Plot No.310/1215 measuring Ac.0.08 dec. and Plot No.308/1198 measuring Ac.0.11 dec. As per the amendment sought for, neither the plot numbers nor the extent of area thereof are proposed to be changed, but certain clarifications with regard to not final RoR in respect of suit schedule „A‟ property and another fraction of land in Plot No.308/1199, carved out of Plot No.308 was sought to be incorporated. Thus it is seen that Plaintiff seeks rectification of the Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 14-Oct-2025 11:50:07 schedule plot numbers without specific change in the extent thereof by way of amendment. It is stated by the Plaintiff that such rectifications proposed to be incorporated by way of amendment could not be brought earlier due to oversight and inadvertent mistake.

6. Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Basavaraj v. Indira (2024) 3 SCC 705, have discussed the principles under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. in the matter of amendments and explained as follows:-

“12. This Court in M.Revanna v. Anjanamma [M. Revanna v. Anjanamma, (2019) 4 SCC 332 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 338] opined that an application for amendment may be rejected if it seeks to introduce totally different, new and inconsistent case or changes the fundamental character of the suit. Order 6 Rule 17CPC prevents an application for amendment after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence the party could not have raised the issue. The burden is on the party seeking amendment after commencement of trial to show that in spite of due diligence such amendment could not be sought earlier. It is not a matter of right. Para 7 thereof is extracted below : (SCC p. 335)

“7. Leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent case, or Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 14-Oct-2025 11:50:07 challenges the fundamental character of the suit. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17CPC virtually prevents an application for amendment of pleadings from being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The proviso, to an extent, curtails absolute discretio