Advocates:
['PRASANTA KUMAR SATAPATHY', '', 'P PANDA', 'B K DAS']

Page 1 of 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CMP No. 809 of 2022

Sandhyarani Das and others

..&

Petitioners

Mr. Prasanta Kumar Satapathy, Advocate

-versus-

Laxmiprava Das @ Mohanty and

others

&.

Opp. Parties

CORAM:

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

09.09.2022

1.

1.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2.

Petitioners in this CMP seek to assail the order dated 17^th

May, 2022 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge,

2^nd Court, Cuttack in CS No.148 of 2016 , whereby an

application filed by the Petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC

has been dismissed.

3.

Mr. Satapathy, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits

that Plaintiffs/Petitioners have inadvertently mentioned the area

of land/plots in Lot Nos. 4 and 5 of Schedule 8A9 and Schedule

8D9 of the plaint. It came to light at the time of cross-

examination of PW-1 by Defendants. Thus, during continuance

of recording of evidence of PW-1, an application under Order VI

Rule 17 CPC was filed to amend the plaint, as stated hereunder.

< SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT

1. In Paragraph 9 of the plaint in 3^rd line delete the word

<start= and its place writ <suit=.

2. In schedule 8A9 of the plaint :-

(a) In Lot No.4 as against the Plot No.275, write

<Ac.1.110 decls=

(b) In Lot No.5 as against the Plot No.1989, write

<Ac.0.080 decls= instead of <Ac.0.020 decls=

// 2 //

Page 2 of 3

3. In schedule 8D9 of the plaint as against the Plot No.746

write <Ac.0.78 decls= instead of <Ac.0.078=.=

He further submits that although the Petitioner has already

exhibited ROR which reflects area of the aforesaid plots

correctly, but inadvertently the area vis-à-vis plot umbers has

been wrongly mentioned in the Schedule-8A9 and 8D9. In order to

remove the discrepancy, such an application was filed. The

amendment sought for is formal in nature and does not change

the nature and character of the suit. It no way affects the right of

the Defendants. Learned trial Court, without taking note of the

same, rejected the application on the ground that since hearing of

the suit has already commenced and the Defendants have

substantially cross-examined the PW-1 on the basis of materials

available on record, amendment sought for if allowed will patch

up the lacunae of the Plaintiff. However, Mr. Satapathy, learned

counsel submits that Defendants did not put any question with

regard to area of the land /plots sought to be amended. He,

therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order and to

permit the Plaintiffs/Petitioners to amend the plaint as per the

schedule of the petition for amendment.

4.

Taking into consideration the submission of learned

counsel for the Petitioners, this Court finds that hearing of the

suit has already commenced. However, learned counsel for the

Petitioners submits that the area mentioned against the plots in

the schedules of the plaint has been wrongly stated although it is

correctly reflected in the RORs already exhibited by the

Plaintiffs/Petitioners. If that be so, then the RORs can be taken

into consideration at the time of hearing of the suit.

Plaintiffs/Petitioners can also clarify the same in their argument.

// 3 //

Page 3 of 3

For the said purpose, amendment of the plaint at the stage when

PW-1 is being cross-examined will not be justified.

5.

With the aforesaid observation, the CMP is disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of the order on proper

application.

(K.R. Mohapatra)

Judge

s.s.satapathy