Dismissed

Sudhanshu @ Sudhansu Kumar Dutta v. Pankaj Kumar Dutta

Orissa HC27 Apr 2021CMP/71/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition challenging the rejection of an application for amendment of a plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The amendment was held to be belated and prejudicial to defendants, as the relevant sale deed was known since 2012 when the written statement was filed. The court declined to entertain the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed as the amendment application is belated and prejudicial to the defendants.

Sudhanshu @ Sudhansu Kumar Dutta Vs Pankaj Kumar Dutta — Property and Title | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

C.M.P. No.71 of 2021

¶2

9.06.2021

¶3

This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode. Heard learned counsel for Petitioner.

¶4

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition involves a challenge to the order of rejection of the application under Order 6 rule 17 of C.P.C. at the instance of the Plaintiff filed on 21.06.2019.

¶5

By way of the application under Order 6 rule 17 of C.P.C the Plaintiff-Petitioner sought to bring the following to the fold of the suit:

¶6

“ PROPOSED AMENDMENT

¶7

After the last sentence of Para-5 the following sentence is to be added:

¶8

“The rest portion of the suit land to the extent of Ac.0.06 Decimal is noted in Schedule “A” of the plaint. The purchased Plot of Plaintiff is a full Plot.”

¶9

In the prayer portion in Para-10 and after italic Para(i) a sub-para is to be added as follows:-

¶10

“The Registered Sale Deed by Rajendra Dutta in favour of Smt. Sabita Dutta bearing Registered No.3471, dated 06.11.1992 and also the mutated R.O.R. in favour of Sabita Dutta be declared illegal and void.

¶11

After Para-2 of the plaint the following sentence to be added:

¶12

Ayas

¶13

“The mother of Rajendra Dutta died in the year 1980.”

¶14

Bringing the amendment at a belated stage the Petitioner in paragraph no.1 submitted that the Plaintiff came to know about the sale deed involved in the proposed amendment, sought to be challenged by way of amendment, only after submission of the same by the defendant in Court. Learned counsel for Petitioner fairly submitted that the defendant no.2 filed the written statement in the year 2012 itself and there was clear disclosure on this particular sale deed. This Court,

¶15

¶16

therefore, observes, the Petitioner’s plea that he could come to know about existence of such sale deed on being provided during evidence, is not acceptable. Since the Petitioner came to know above existence of such deed since 2012, filing amendment after such long delay amounts to be a clear attempt to delay the suit. Further for the settled position of law, no such relief particularly involving challenge to sale deed involved herein for there was already disclosure in 2012 can be entertained after three year.

¶17

Perused the impugned order. For the reasons assigned therein and for the belated nature of amendment application, this Court is of the opinion that entertaining such application for amendment at this stage will be amounting to entertain a highly belated claim and will be seriously prejudicing the defendants, which is not permissible in the eye of law. This Court, therefore, is not inclined to entertain the Civil Miscellaneous Petition, which is hereby dismissed.

¶18

As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a printout of the order available in the High Court’s website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587, dated 25^th March, 2020 as modified by Court’s Notice No.4798, dated 15^th April, 2021.

¶19

.……………………..… (Biswanath Rath, J.)

¶20

Sudhanshu @ Sudhansu Kumar Dutta v. Pankaj Kumar Dutta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhanshu @ Sudhansu Kumar Dutta v. Pankaj Kumar Dutta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadhu Mallick @Sadhu Vs Ganesh Pr.Mallik

Satyabhama Sahoo Vs Commnr.of Consolidn.

Kirtan Patra Vs State of Odisha

Rama Chandra Das Vs Kali Das

Pramod Kumar Ray Vs State of Odisha and Ors.

Premananda Mohanty Vs State Govt.,Dhenkanal