The High Court dismissed a contempt petition challenging a trial court order rejecting an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. The Court held the petitioner failed to exercise due diligence in ascertaining a third-party owner's details before trial commencement.
Contempt petition dismissed; no direction on amendment 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.1066 OF 2022
Debendra Kumar Samantaray
…. Petitioner
Ms. Sumitra Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Monalisa Lenka
…. Opp. Party
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
10.11.2022
Page 1 of 3
// 2 //
has explained the circumstances under which he could not file the petition for amendment earlier. It clearly shows that in spite of due diligence, Defendant-Petitioner could not have sought for amendment, as proposed in the said petition before commencement of the hearing. This material aspect was not considered by learned trial Court while adjudicating the petition under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. Further, amendment sought for is necessary for proper adjudication of the case. She further submits that clarification to the pleadings can be taken by way of an amendment as held in the cases of Subash Ch. Das and another –v- Kanheilal Khandelwalla and others , reported in 1989 (I) OLR 150 and the Nayabati and others –vSanghamitra Sahoo and others , reported in 2002 (I) OLR 282. She, therefore, submits that the impugned order under Annexure-1 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside.
“That it is further submitted here that the plaintiff is possessing more area than to her purchase as claimed and averted in this suit. In between the suit land and the land of the defendant there was a small piece of land owned by one Prafulla Chandra Mohanty of Village Jharakata under Cuttack Sadar Police Station. But the plaintiff has illegally occupied the said land by amalgamating it with the suit Plot.”
Thus, the Defendant-Petitioner had knowledge that one Prafulla Chandra Mohanty was allegedly the owner of the strip of land existing between his land and the suit property. Without ascertaining the details of said ownership, the Petitioner filed
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
the written statement. Thus, it appears that the Petitioner could have incorporated the plea as proposed in the petition for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. before commencement of the trial. If the amendment sought for at this stage is allowed, it will be a travesty to the procedure of law, as the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. clearly provides that a petition for amendment shall be considered after commencement of the trial, if the Party seeking amendment, in spite of due diligence, could not have sought for the same before commencement of the trial. In the instant case, it appears that the Petitioner had not exercised due diligence to ascertain the details of the ownership of said Prafulla Chandra Mohanty. The case laws cited by learned counsel for the Petitioner are relating to a stage prior to the amendment of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C.. Hence, the ratios decided therein are of no assistance to the Petitioner.
ms
Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned trial court erred in rejecting the amendment petition under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. due to lack of due diligence by the petitioner.
Whether the cited case laws are applicable given the amendments to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C.
Whether to allow the amendment of pleadings to include a missing plea about a third-party owner separating the suit plots.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Subash Ch. Das and another –v- Kanheilal Khandelwalla and othersDistinguished¶19
Subash Ch. Das and another –v- Kanheilal Khandelwalla and others, 1989 (I) OLR 150
Nayabati and others –vSanghamitra Sahoo and othersDistinguished¶19
Nayabati and others –vSanghamitra Sahoo and others, 2002 (I) OLR 282
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Debendra Kumar Samantaray
Monalisa Lenka
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
