Partly allowed

Mamata Rani Sahu v. Pradyumna Ku.Sahu

Orissa HC20 Jul 2018WP(C)/20475/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the refusal of an amendment application under CPC in a 2006 probate proceeding. The court held that while explaining past pleas was unnecessary, introducing a document proving the mother's illness was relevant. The impugned order was set aside to allow the document, with parties directed to proceed in the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside to allow introduction of the document at Annexure-7 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC; parties directed to appear on 2nd August 2018.

Mamata Rani Sahu Vs Pradyumna Ku.Sahu — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2018)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.20475of 2010

¶2

20.07.2018 Heard Shri P.K. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1.

¶3

This writ petition involves a challenge to the refusal of the application under order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. at the instance of the petitioner in a Probate proceeding.

¶4

Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court to the pleadings already available in the probate misc. case no.3/06/72/06 at Annexure-1 more particularly to the pleadings in paragraph no.8 and the proposed amendment submitted that the proposed amendment is only the explaining of the plea already there. In addition to this, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that by way of amendment, the petitioner also sought to be introducing a document, a certified copy of the proceeding, establishing the petitioner’s claim on the aspect of illness of the mother. It is, in the above premises and on the submission that allowing such application would have rather facilitated effective adjudication of the suit, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court for interfering in the impugned order of rejection of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. and thereby, allowing the writ petition.

¶5

On the other hand, Shri M. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 submitted that the attempt of moving the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. being undertaken after ten months after filing of the evidence on affidavit, the attempt of the petitioner appears to be filling up the lacunas. To support his such claim, Shri M. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party also taken reliance of a judgment in the case of Khali and others versus Sadhaba

¶6

¶7

Bewa and others as reported in AIR 1967 Ori.58 .

¶8

Considering the rival contentions of the parties, looking to the pleadings already existed through the original application and the proposed amendment so far it relates to explaining the health condition of the mother, this Court finds, such explanation is not necessary for the pleadings already there in the original application, but however, looking to the introduction of the document, a certified copy of the proceeding already contested and closed helping the petitioner, establishing his claim that the mother was ill at the relevant point of time, having relevancy in the evidence of the petitioner involved herein, this Court finds, there is improper consideration of this aspect by the trial court so far it relates to introduction of the document.

¶9

In the process, this Court interfering in the impugned order so far it relates to introduction of the document at Annexure-7, sets aside the same and allows the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. so far it relates to introduction of the document vide Annexure-7. The impugned order is interfered with to the extent indicated hereinabove. Since the probate proceeding is of the year 2006, both the parties are directed to appear before the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bhadrak on 2^nd of August, 2018 along with certified copy of this order.

¶10

The writ petition stands disposed of with the above direction.

¶11

Issue urgent certified copy on proper application.

¶12

…….…………………

¶13

(Biswanath Rath, J.)

¶14

Ayas

¶15

Mamata Rani Sahu v. Pradyumna Ku.Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamata Rani Sahu v. Pradyumna Ku.Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Das Vs Bhagaban Ram

Harihara Patra Vs B.M.,H.D.F.C.Bank Lt

Lal Bahadur Ojha Vs Usha Ojha

Sakuntala Chand Vs Maheswar Parija

Praphulla Ku.Naik Vs M.C.,Srikrishna

Bhanumati Sabata Vs K.Chiti Babu