The High Court of Orissa dismissed the writ petition challenging the trial court's order rejecting an application for amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, holding the proposed amendment to be a mala fide attempt to introduce a new story.
Writ petition dismissed; interim order vacated.
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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Nov-2023 10:42:15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 15565 OF 2013 Nityananda Das …. Petitioner Mr. P.R. Barik, Advocate
on behalf of
Mr. Debendra Kumar Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
Sudhir Kumar Sahoo and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Situn Mohanty, Advocate (For Opp. Party Nos.2 to 5)
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
07.11.2023
Page 1 of 4
Signature Not Verified
// 2 //
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Nov-2023 10:42:15
Plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to introduce a plea that during pendency of the suit, Balaram, to whom the Plaintiff had sold the property, had executed a sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff on 30th October, 2011 in respect of the property he had purchased. It is his case that the said fact being a subsequent event, is necessary to be incorporated in the pleading for just adjudication of the suit. Learned trial Court most erroneously holding that after filing of the suit, the Plaintiff with a mala fide intention managed to obtain the sale deed in respect of the suit land in his favour and the same is not necessary for just adjudication of the suit, rejected the petition. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.
Page 2 of 4
Signature Not Verified
// 3 //
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Nov-2023 10:42:15
Registered Sale Deed dated 26th December, 2008 in favour of one, Balaram Swain asserting his right over the said property. Thus, execution of the Registered Sale Deed dated 26th December, 2008 itself discloses that the property is not in jointness. Thus, by introduction of the subsequent sale deed executed during pendency of the suit is not necessary for just adjudication of the suit. The document has been executed in order to create a new story, which is not permissible in law. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
Page 3 of 4
Signature Not Verified
// 4 //
ms
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Nov-2023 10:42:15
Court, the Plaintiff with an intention to take away the effect of the pleadings in the written statement has developed a new story. Such an amendment cannot be permitted in eye of law. Hence, learned trial Court has committed no error in dismissing the petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
application.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
Page 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the proposed amendment to the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, introducing a sale deed executed during pendency of the suit to create a new story, is necessary for just adjudication and bona
Whether the trial court committed an error in rejecting the petition for amendment of pleadings on the ground that it was not bona fide.
Whether the writ petition has any merit and should be dismissed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nityananda Das
Sudhir Kumar Sahoo and others
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
