The High Court dismissed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition challenging the rejection of an application to amend pleadings. The court held that inserting the word 'fraudulent' without specific averments of fraud was not permissible and found no infirmity in the trial court's order.
CMP dismissed on merits; no amendment of pleadings allowed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP No. 124 of 2021
Brahmashankar Pradhan and others
…. Petitioners
Mr.B.B.Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Umesh Chandra Pradhan and others
…. Opp. Party
CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
22.07.2021
Page 1 of 3
// 2 //
submits that Defendant No.1 has played fraud on Plaintiffs. Therefore, they want to incorporate the words “ fraudulent ” at appropriate place in paragraphs 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the plaint accordingly. Learned Civil Judge, without considering the matter from its proper perspective, rejected the application for which this CMP has been filed.
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
s.s.satapathy
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for amendment of pleadings to insert the word 'fraudulent' is maintainable without specific averments of fraud.
Whether refusing to allow amendment of plaint where fraud is not specifically pleaded amounts to an infirmity.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Brahmashankar Pradhan and others
Umesh Chandra Pradhan and others
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
