Amendment of plaint; Order-VI Rule-17 CPC; due diligence; belated amendment; demarcation already averred; Paragraph-8 of plaint; C.S. No.3043 of 2014; Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Kendrapara; CMP dismissed; expedite suit.
No substantive relief; the Court below was directed to expedite and conclude the suit as early as possible. ¶15
Since the plaintiff had already claimed in the plaint that the disputed property was subject to demarcation in the past, there is no reason to incorporate the same averments again through the proposed amendment. ¶11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No. 587 of 2022
Jamar Kumar Swain …. Petitioner Mr. B. Samal, Advocate
-Versus –
Damayanti Behera & Others …. Opp. Parties
Mr. B. Baral, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
ORDER_ 05.08.2025
Order No. 03.
Page 1 of 1
knowledge of the plaintiff at the time of presentation of the plaint. Nothing has been shown as to why the said fact was not incorporated in the plaint. As such, the requirement of due diligence remains not satisfied.
( Sashikanta Mishra) Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 06-Aug-2025 12:59:50
Page 2 of 1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court should interfere with the Court below's rejection of the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint under Order-VI Rule-17 of CPC.medium confidence¶14
Since the plaintiff had already claimed in the plaint that the disputed property was subject to demarcation in the past, there is no reason to incorporate the same averments again through the proposed amendment.ratio¶11
Whether the facts sought to be incorporated in the proposed amendment to Paragraph-8 of the plaint were within the plaintiff's knowledge at the time of presentation of the plaint, satisfying the due-diligence requirement.medium confidence¶13
The facts sought to be incorporated in the proposed amendment to Paragraph-8 of the plaint were obviously within the plaintiff's knowledge at the time of presentation of the plaint; nothing was shown as to why they were omitted, so the requirement of due diligence remains not satisfied.ratio¶13
1 provisions across 1 enactments
How this case reached the court
Rejection by the Court below of the plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint under Order-VI Rule-17 of CPC.¶10
Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kendrapara
Petitioner is the Plaintiff in suit C.S. No.3043 of 2014 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kendrapara.¶10
After completion of pleadings, the Plaintiff filed an application for amendment to incorporate certain averments and an additional prayer.¶10
Defendant No.1 objected that the amendment was not necessary and had been filed at a belated stage.¶10
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
