High Court of Orissa dismissed a contempt matter seeking to set aside an order rejecting an amendment petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The court held the petition was not maintainable as filed after the plaintiff's evidence was closed.
Application to set aside the impugned order under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is dismissed.
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. 1079 OF 2014
Kamala Rout and others
…. Petitioners
Mr. Ayushman Mahanta, Advocate
-versus-
…. Opp. Parties Mr. Bibhudhananda Muduli, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.1)
Api @ Aparna Rout and others
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
04.01.2023
Page 1 of 4
// 2 //
record was admitted in evidence, it came to light that Defendant No.2 made a statement in the plaint that his father, namely, Shyam Rout was a person of unsound mind. The Plaintiff is trying to take advantage of such statement in the plaint filed in T.S. No.7 of 2002. Hence, it was necessitated on the part of the Defendants No.1 and 2(a) to 2(e) to amend the pleading to adduce rebuttal evidence. The said application was rejected on the ground that the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 had knowledge of the pleadings in T.S. No.7 of 2002 and that the trial of the suit has already commenced. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the Petitioners that unless the amendment sought for is brought on record, there is every likelihood that the Defendants may not establish their case. It is his submission that amendment of the written statement should always be considered liberally and the Court while dealing with the petition for amendment should keep in mind that the amendment is imperative for just adjudication of the case. This materials aspect were lost sight of by learned trial Court while adjudicating the petition under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C.. Hence, the impugned order under Annexure-5 is liable to be set aside.
Page 2 of 4
// 3 //
of 2002 to the effect that his father was a person of unsound mind. Thus, the plea that after the case record in T.S. No.7 of 2002 was admitted in evidence, the Defendants came to know about the pleadings in T.S. No.7 of 2002 is a myth. The petition for amendment was filed at a stage, when the Plaintiff’s evidence was closed and Defendant Nos.3 to 6 and 9 have already adduced their evidence. Thus, in view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., the petition for amendment filed by the present Petitioners was not maintainable at all. Thus, learned trial Court has committed no error in rejecting the petition.
Page 3 of 4
// 4 //
ms
the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C.. There is no material on record to show that the Petitioners could not have taken step for incorporation of the pleading as sought for in the amendment petition before commencement of trial. Thus, I find no infirmity in the impugned order under Annexure-5.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for amendment of a written statement filed after the plaintiff's evidence is closed is maintainable under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
Whether the rejection of the amendment petition for lack of material necessity or delay in filing was the correct view of the trial court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kamala Rout and others
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
