This writ petition challenged an order allowing amendment of a plaint. The High Court held the amendment was formal and did not change the suit's nature. Costs were enhanced to Rs.3,000 pending disposal.
Costs enhanced to Rs.3,000 to be paid to the petitioner's counsel within three weeks or previous order recalled.
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.
W.P.(C) No.2696 of 2006
04.11.2015 Assailing the order dated 8.2.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn
.), Sambalpur in T.S. No.27 of 1994, the instant petition is filed under Article 227 of the Co
nstitution of India. By the said order, learned trial court allowed the application for amendm
ent of the plaint.
Opposite party no.1 as plaintiff instituted T.S. No.27 of 1994 in the court of
the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Sambalpur for declaration of right, title and interest o
ver the suit property and recovery of possession. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defenda
nts entered appearance and filed their written statement. In course of hearing, the plaintiff
was examined and cross-examined as P.W.1. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application under
Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. before the court below to incorporate the fact that there was a previo
us H.R.C. Case bearing No.22 of 1970, which ended in compromise between the plaintiff and late
Balamukunda Sahu on 11.10.74. Balamukunda Sahu continued as a monthly tenant. In view of the
compromise, the legal heirs of late Balamukunda Sahu are estopped to challenge the ownership a
nd title of the suit property. The learned trial court allowed the application for amendment o
f the plaint.
Heard Mr. A.K. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.C. Jena, l
earned counsel for the opposite party no.1.
Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners argues with vehemence that the
proposed amendment will change the nature and character of the suit and the same was filed aft
er the plaintiff was examined.
Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 submits that the propo
sed amendment is formal in nature. The same will no way change the nature and character of the
suit. The proposed amendment is necessary to determine the real controversy between the parti
es.
On a conspectus of the proposed amendment, it is evident that the plaintiff so
ught to incorporate the plea that the compromise entered into between the parties in a H.R.C.
Case. The proposed amendment is formal in nature. The same is required for determining the rea
l dispute between the parties. The proposed amendment will not change the nature and character
of the suit. Learned trial court is quite justified to allow the application for amendment of
the plaint, but then the cost awarded appears to be too low. The same is enhanced to Rs.3,000
/- (rupees three thousand). The said cost shall be paid to Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the
petitioners within a period of three weeks from today, failing which, the order dated 8.2.2006
passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Sambalpur in T.S. No.27 of 1994 will be automa
tically recalled. The learned trial court is directed to dispose of the suit by end of March,
2016.
The petition is disposed of.
2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the proposed amendment to the plaint changes the nature and character of the suit.
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Whether the cost awarded for the amendment was appropriate.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
H.R.C. Case bearing No.22 of 1970Referred¶3
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioners
Opposite party no.1
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court