IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.1580 of 2025 Sachikanta Patra ..... Petitioner Represented by Adv. -

Satyabadi Mantry -versus-

Bidyadhar Baral and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented by Adv. -

M/s Manoj Kumar Panda, Prasanta Kumar Jena,smruti Ranjan Nayak.

CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

15.01.2026 Order No.

03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-Opposite Parties. Perused the CMP application as well as the prayer made therein.

3. By filing the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Defendant No.1 as Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 01.09.2025 passed in C.S. No.117 of 2012 by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pattamundai at Annexure-6. By virtue of impugned order dated 01.09.2025, the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed at the instance of Defendant No.1 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment to the written statement.

4. Learned counsel for the Defendant No.1 at the outset contended that the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 6 as plaintiffs filed a suit bearing Civil Suit No.117 of 2012 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pattamundai with a prayer for grant of a decree declaring the sale deed dated 16.03.2012 to be illegal and void and further grant of a decree directing the Defendant No.1 to return the schedule land to the plaintiff by executing a RSD by receiving the consideration amount of the RSD dated 16.03.2012 executed by the Defendant No.2 in favour of the Defendant No.1. Further a prayer has been made for grant of a decree for permanent injunction in the suit by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture further contended that before commencement of trial an application was filed at the instance of Defendant No.1 seeking amendments to the pleadings in the written statement filed by the Defendant No.1. Although the trial has commenced, however, none of the plaintiff’s witnesses have been examined so far

5. By filing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC the Defendant No.1 sought to incorporate the amendment as has been indicated in the schedule to the application under Order 6 Rule 17 i.e. with regard to inclusion of the words in para-19 that “one of the daughter of the late Kanduri and Hemalata” before the words “Kanduri died”. He has also sought to incorporate the amendment with regard to the status of some of the Parties to the suit. Further, it was submitted that the necessity for amendment to the W.S. arose as during the pendency of the suit one of the defendants i.e. the defendant no.2 namely, Hemalata, wife of Kanduri died during the pendency of the suit. There exists a dispute with regard to the legal heirs of the deceased Defendant No.2 and the Defendant No.1 wanted to incorporate the pleadings with regard to legal heirs of the deceased Defendant No.2 so that the same can be adjudicated in the suit itself.

6. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties-Plaintiffs on the other hand contended that the very same issue that was sought to be incorporated in W.S. by way of an amendment has already been decided on an application filed under Section Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC at the time of substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased Defendant No.2. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs contended that such issue having attained finality, could not have been raised in the suit by amending the written statement. On such ground, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs objected to the amendment sought for in the W.S. at the instance of the defendant no.1.

7. The learned trial Court took up the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC for consideration. By virtue of order dated 01.09.2025, which is subject matter of challenge in the present CMP application, disposed of such application by rejecting t