Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:54:11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

C.M.P. No.2044 of 2025

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

India)

Sirish Mohanta …. Petitioner

-versus-

Birendranath Mohanta and others …. Opposite Parties

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Patnaik, Advocate

For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, Advocate

For O.P. Nos.1 to 3

CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

9^th January 2026 B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Patnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner and

Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties 1 to 3.

2. Present C.M.P. is directed against order dated 03.11.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Rairangpur in C.S. No.200 of 2019, wherein the prayer of the Plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint has

been allowed.

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:54:11

3. Present Petitioner is Defendant No.18 and Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are the Plaintiffs. After completion of the pleading from both sides, issues were settled and now the suit is pending for adducing evidence from the side of the Plaintiffs. At this stage, the proposed amendment was sought for by the Plaintiffs to be incorporated in the plaint.

4. Mr. S. Patnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner (Defendant No.18) submits that, the amendments proposed by the Plaintiffs is not at all necessary though he agrees to the fact that said amendment sought for does not change the nature and character of the suit. According to him, the amendment which is unnecessary on the part of the Plaintiffs, as the proposed plots are already there in the suit schedule, the Plaintiffs are lingering disposal of the suit.

5. The stage of the suit that it is before the stage of evidence to be adduced from the side of the Plaintiffs, is admitted and it is not the case of the Defendants that, the proposed amendment would change the nature and character of the suit.

6. In the matter of amendment under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C., the well-known principle is that, the same should be allowed liberally Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:54:11 unless it changes the nature and character of the suit or cause prejudice to adverse party or has been brought at a belated stage without explanation towards due diligence. Further the amendment should not be allowed if it permits the party to withdraw his admission, if any, made earlier.

7. The general principles of amendment are well settled in plethora of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 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 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:

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Jan-2026 15:54:11

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 cert