The High Court allowed a petitioners request to amend the plaint, including adding a prayer for declaration of title and impleading parties, setting aside the trial court's rejection by holding amendments should be allowed if they can be pursued in a separate suit.
Impugned order set aside; amendment allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
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: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Aug-2023 10:20:32
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 1631 OF 2011
Gangadhar Rout and another
…. Petitioners
Mr. Maheswar Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
Sankarsan Biswal
…. Opp. Party
None
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
Order No.
ORDER 17.08.2023
Page 1 of 4
// 2 //
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Aug-2023 10:20:32
typographical error, correction of serial number of the paragraphs as well as description of the suit property with corresponding MS and Sabik description of the land. The Petitioners also sought to implead some persons, who are creating disturbance over the suit property and have not been impleaded as parties to the suit. A prayer for declaration of right, title and interest is also sought to be incorporated. The Petitioner also prayed for enhancement of the valuation of the suit. Learned trial Court without delving into the merit of the petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, rejected the same on the ground that without filing an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the Petitioner by virtue of the amendment seek to implead some persons as parties to the suit, which is not permissible. Learned trial Court also referred to Rule 20 of GRCO (Civil) and observed that a separate petition for impletion of parties should have been filed. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the petition for amendment has been rejected.
Page 2 of 4
// 3 //
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Aug-2023 10:20:32
Page 3 of 4
Signature Not Verified
// 4 //
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Aug-2023 10:20:32
of the consolidated plaint serving copy thereof on learned counsel for the Defendant, who will be at liberty to file additional written statement, if so advised.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
ms
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint is maintainable without a prior application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of parties.
Whether amendments necessary for just adjudication and to expunge litigation should be allowed despite procedural lapses.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Gangadhar Rout
Sankarsan Biswal
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
