The High Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the trial court's order rejecting an amendment application filed post-trial. The court held that the amendment sought to withdraw a crucial admission, causing irreparable prejudice without necessity for adjudication.
The writ petition was dismissed with no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.12431 of 2007
In the matter of an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
| Padmini Behera and others | …. | Petitioners | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Versus | |||
| Jamuna Dei | …. | Opposite party | |
| For Petitioners | -- | Mr.Mahadev Mishra Sr.Advocate |
|
| For Opposite Party | -- | Mr.Soumya Mishra Advocate |
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.RATH Date of Hearing: 09.11.2015 : Date of Judgment: 20.11.2015
Dr.A.K.Rath, J. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners assail the order dated 12.7.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Jajpur in T.S.No.191 of 1998. By the said order, the learned trial court rejected the application for amendment of plaint filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C.
2
result of which, his mother Sundari became the exclusive owner of the suit property. Sundari executed one Will on 18.8.1964 in favour of one Maheswar Behera, predecessor in interest of the petitioners. She died on 12.1.1972. Sukanta died in the year 1971. For grant of letters of administration, Maheswar Behera filed an application under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act in the court of the learned District Judge, Cuttack, which was registered as Misc.Case No.17 of 1994. The same was subsequently transferred to the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Jajpur and renumbered as T.S.No.191 of 1998. The opposite party lodged a caveat and contended that the testator had no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. She had no legal authority to execute the Will. The assertion of the plaintiff that Sukanta died in the year 1971 has not been disputed by the defendant. During pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff died, whereafter the petitioners, who are legal representatives of the plaintiff, have been substituted. After conclusion of the trial when the case was posted for argument, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of plaint to incorporate the plea that Sukanta died in the year 1961 and not 1971. The defendant filed an objection to the same. By order dated 12.7.2007, the trial court rejected the application holding that the same is a post trial amendment petition. Elaborate evidence for and against the year of death of Sukanta is there and the proposed amendment would cause serious prejudice to the defendant.
3
submitted that the proposed amendment is formal in nature and the same will not change the nature and character of the suit. Per contra, Mr.Soumya Mishra, learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that after conclusion of the trial when the suit was posted for argument, at this juncture, the substituted plaintiffs filed the application for amendment. The proposed amendment is to take away the admission made by the original plaintiff. He further submitted that both parties led evidence with regard to the date of death of Sukanta as 1971. The proposed amendment will change the nature and character of the suit.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 20th November, 2015/CRB.
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of plaint filed after conclusion of the trial on the ground that it would cause prejudice and alter the nature of the s
Whether the proposed amendment to withdraw an admission regarding the date of death of a deceased defendant was necessary for determining the real questions in controversy.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Padmini Behera and others
Jamuna Dei
A.K.Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
