Partly allowed

Girija Bhusan Rath v. Biswajit Dasrathi Mohapatra @ Jitu Sethy

Orissa HC21 Jun 2024CMP/367/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified a lower court order allowing amendment of a written statement to introduce counter-claim nomenclature. The court enhanced the cost imposed for the delay from Rs. 200 to Rs. 750 but refused to interfere with the permission to amend, disposing of the CMP with the cost modification.

What did the court decide?

Cost enhanced from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 750/- payable within 15 days; application otherwise disposed of.

Girija Bhusan Rath Vs Biswajit Dasrathi… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 24-Jun-2024 14:18:00

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

CMP NO.367 OF 2024

¶4

Girija Bhusan Rath …. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Bikram Rath, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Biswajit Dasrathi Mohapatra @ Jitu …. Opp. Parties Sethy and others

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

Order No.

ORDER 21.06.2024

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶13

Order dated 9^th February, 2024 (Annexure-5) passed by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Athagarh in CS(I) No.73 of 2020 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby an application for amendment of the written statement-cum-counter claim, has been allowed.

¶14

It is submitted by Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Defendants-Opposite Parties filed the written statement-cum-counter claim without any nomenclature. Thus, the Plaintiff-Petitioner raised objection with regard to the admissibility of the counter claim stating that it contravenes order VIII Rule 1-B CPC. Realizing that the Defendants have committed a gross error in filing the written statement-cumcounter claim, they filed an application for amendment to introduce the nomenclature (counter claim). The said application was allowed vide order dated 9^th February, 2024.

¶15

Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the petition for amendment to introduce the nomenclature was filed at a belated stage without filing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Thus, it should not have been considered

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 24-Jun-2024 14:18:00

¶18

lightly. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order under Annexure-5 is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

¶19

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner and on perusal of the record, it appears that the amendment petition to the written statement-cum-counter claim was filed only to introduce the nomenclature (counter claim). Taking into consideration that there is a delay in filing such application, learned Court has awarded a cost of Rs.200/-. In the meantime, the Plaintiff-Petitioner has already filed the written statement to the counter claim. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶20

However, the cost imposed by learned Court is enhanced to Rs.750/- (Seven Hundred Fifty) from Rs.200/-(Two Hundred). The differential cost shall be paid to the Plaintiff-Petitioner within a period of fifteen days from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

¶21

With the aforesaid modification, this CMP is disposed of.

¶22

Since this CMP is disposed of without issuing notice to the Defendants-Opposite Parties, they are at liberty to seek for variation of this order, if they feel aggrieved.

¶23

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

¶24

Rojalin

¶25

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶26

Page 2 of 2

Girija Bhusan Rath v. Biswajit Dasrathi Mohapatra @ Jitu Sethy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girija Bhusan Rath v. Biswajit Dasrathi Mohapatra @ Jitu Sethy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gagan Bihari Das Vs Sasadhar Das

Mantosh Pradhan Vs Jagannath Behera

Subash Chandra Das Vs Mami Pati

Dusmanta Behera Vs M.D, Sun Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack

Susanta Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Puspanjali Sahoo Vs State of Odisha