Disposed

Baikuntha Charan Sahoo v. Urmila Sahoo

Orissa HC7 Dec 2022CMP/1120/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa, dealing with a Civil Miscellaneous Petition seeking to set aside a trial court order rejecting an amendment of plaint, remitted the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration on a narrower prayer regarding correction of a typographical error.

What did the court decide?

Matter remitted to the learned trial court to consider the prayer for amendment afresh with opportunity of hearing; impugned order kept in abeyance.

Baikuntha Charan Sahoo Vs Urmila Sahoo — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No. 1120 OF 2022

¶2

Baikuntha Charan Sahoo and another …. Petitioners Mr. Niranjan Prasad Patra, Advocate

¶3

-versus-

¶4

Urmila Sahoo and others

¶5

…. Opp. Parties

¶6

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

07.12.2022

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶12

The Petitioners in this CMP seek to assail the order dated 22^nd September, 2022 (Annexure-5) passed by learned Senior Civil Judge (LR and LTV), Kendrapara in T.S. No.504 of 2001, whereby an application for amendment of the schedule of the plaint has been rejected.

¶13

In course of hearing, Mr. Patra, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that although in the proposed amendment, entire schedule has been given, but, in fact, the PlaintiffsPetitioners purpose to amend Khata No.497/111 in Schedule-B of the plaint. It is submitted that instead of Khata No.497/111, it has been inadvertently typed as Khata No.397/111 in the Schedule-B of the plaint. If the typographical error is corrected, the suit can be effectively decided. Learned trial Court without appreciating the same, proceeded on an impression that the Plaintiffs-Petitioners want to substitute the entire schedule (Schedule-A and B) of the plaint. He, therefore, prays for

¶14

Page 1 of 2

¶15

// 2 //

¶16

setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-5 and to permit the Petitioners to amend the plaint accordingly.

¶17

In view of the submission made by learned counsel, this Court feels that if the Petitioners confine their prayer for amendment for correction of Khata No.397/111, the same should be considered afresh given opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶18

Since the suit is of the year, 2001, issuance of notice to the Opposite Parties may further delay disposal of the suit. Hence, this Court remits the matter back to learned trial Court to consider those aspects of the prayer made by learned counsel for the Petitioners providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶19

Till disposal of the petition for amendment afresh, the impugned order under Annexure-5 shall be kept in abeyance.

¶20

The CMP is accordingly disposed of.

¶21

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶22

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶23

¶24

Page 2 of 2

Baikuntha Charan Sahoo v. Urmila Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baikuntha Charan Sahoo v. Urmila Sahoo

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rabindranath Barik Vs State Information Commissioner, Odisha

Ranjeeta Digal Vs Jagabandhu Digal

Deepak Jagawani Vs Sonal Jagawani

Narayan Rout Vs State of Odisha

Manamohan Tripathy Vs State of Odisha

Parama Nanda Panda Vs State of Odisha