Plaintiff challenged rejection of his Order VI Rule 17 CPC application to amend the plot areas in a 2000 suit for title and injunction. The High Court found the plaint had earlier been amended and evidence was complete, the suit being reserved for judgment, and dismissed the CMP.
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: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 18-Mar-2024 14:59:24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CMP NO.201 OF 2024 Nakula Nag
…. Petitioner
Mr. Asish Kumar Padhee, Advocate
-versus-
Suresh Sarbhangia and others
…. Opp. Parties
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No.
15.03.2024
Page 1 of 3
// 2 //
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 18-Mar-2024 14:59:24
necessary for just adjudication of the suit. Unless amendment sought for is allowed, it will be difficult to execute the decree, in the event, the Plaintiff comes out successful in the suit. The area in respect of the plots more fully mentioned in the writ petition for amendment should be allowed to be changed. The proposed amendment will not prejudice the defendants if the amendment is allowed. These aspects should be taken into consideration while adjudicating the petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Hence, this CMP has been filed to set aside the order under Annexure-7.
Page 2 of 3
// 3 //
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 18-Mar-2024 14:59:24
reserved for judgment. Thus, at this stage, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order under Annexure-7.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
Rojalin
(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint schedule at the stage of argument.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Nakula Nag
Suresh Sarbhangia and others
K.R. Mohapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
