Manjulata Satapathy Vs Nimai Ch.Mohanty

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

I.A. No.843 of 2025

¶3

RSA No.244 of 2013

¶4

Manjulata Satapathy …..… Appellant

¶5

-Versus-

¶6

Nimai Charan Mohanty ……. Respondent

¶7

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:

¶8

For the Appellant : M/s. Mr. Bansidhar Baug, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. R.C. Rath, Advocate For Respondent : M/s. Bibekananda Bhuyan, Sr. Advocate along with Ms. S. Sahoo, Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

¶11

ORDER 29^th July, 2025

¶12

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

¶13

This is an application filed by the Defendant

¶14

No.1 for amendment of the written statement filed by her

¶15

in the suit. This application was filed in the midst of final

¶16

Page 1 of 7

¶17

hearing of the Second Appeal, and was heard along with the appeal. The present order shall dispose of the application, while the appeal is also being disposed of today separately.

¶18

2. By means of this application, Defendant No.1 seeks to amend the written statement filed by her before the trial Court to incorporate three paragraphs being Paragraph Nos.10.1, 10.2 and 10.3. The sum and substance of the averments sought to be introduced by way of amendment is that the suit land originally belongs to Raja of Patia, but Patia estate was auctioned in a mortgage suit for non-payment of dues. The Raja of Kanika was the auction purchaser and thereby became the landlord/intermediary of that estate. He subsequently gifted the estate to his son, Sailendra Narayan Bhanja Deo, who became the owner/intermediary of the estate till its vesting with the Government. There being no application submitted by the intermediary under Sections 6 and 7 of the OEA Act, the estate was vested in the Government and accordingly recorded in its name in the

¶19

Page 2 of 7

¶20

1973 settlement. Raja Krushna Chandra Deb of Patia by practicing fraud filed an application under Sections 6 and 7 of the OEA Act and thereafter filed T.S. No.58/1993 and obtained declaration in his favour by an ex-parte decree by suppressing the material facts. As such, the judgment and decree being non-est in the eye of law do not confer any title in favour of Raja Krushna Chandra Deb. Consequently any transfer of property made by him is void. There facts being highly material need to be incorporated in the written statement.

¶21

3. Objection has been filed by the Respondent-Plaintiff questioning the maintainability of the petition at this stage. It is stated that the application is filed only to delay the disposal of the appeal. In any event, such stand is contrary to the stand taken by the appellant-defendant in her written statement. Both the Courts below having negatived the plea of the defendant regarding title, she has no locus standi to seek amendment of her written statement at this belated stage. Moreover, the delay of 24 years in filing the application has not been explained at

¶22

Page 3 of 7

¶23

all. The application also does not fulfil the requirement of due diligence as per Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.

¶24

4. Heard Mr. B. Baug, learned Senior counsel along with Mr. R.C.Rath, learned counsel for the appellantdefendant and Mr. B. Bhuyan, learned Senior counsel with Ms. S. Sahoo, learned counsel for the plaintiffrespondent.

¶25

5. Mr. Baug would argue that it is the settled positon of law that fraud vitiates all judicial acts and therefore, delay cannot be a ground to prevent the actual facts from being placed before the Court. Since the original Defendant No.4 had obtained an ex-parte decree by suppression of material facts regarding the auction purchase of Patia estate, the same amounts to playing fraud with the Court. Therefore, any sale of land made by him, over which he has no alienable right, is non-est in the eye of law. This is a material fact which both the Courts below were not aware of and therefore, it is the duty of Defendant No.1 to bring such facts on record. Mr. Baug has cited a judgment

¶26

of this Court in the case of Maheswar Naik and others

¶27

Page 4 of 7

¶28

v. Tikayet Sailendra Narayan Bhanja Deo; A.I.R. (38)

¶29

1951, Orissa 327 in support of his contention.

¶30

6. Per contra, Mr. Bhuyan would argue that the first and foremost requirement of an application for amendment is that the applicant must show exercise of due diligence in bringing the proposed amendment on record. In the instant case, nothing has been placed by the Defendant No.1 to show as to why the proposed amendment was not introduced earlier. That apart, the contention that the ex-parte judgment was passed on suppression of facts is no longer available to be raised in view of the period of time elapsed. It is settled law that time barred claims cannot be permitted to be introduced by way of amendment.

¶31

7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and have gone through the materials on record. Defendant No.1 claims that the Patia estate was purchased by Raja

¶32

of Kanika as an auction purchaser in 1932 but fact remains that Defendant No.4 of the original suit was treated as intermediary on his application filed under Page 5 of 7

¶33

Sections 6 and 7 of the OEA Act at the time of vesting of the estate. Much water has flown down the bridge ever since. Since the estate was recorded in the name of the State Government, the ex-intermediary (defendant No.4)

¶34

filed a suit being T.S. No.58/1993 and the same was decreed by declaring the title of Defendant No.4. Said decree has never been challenged till date and as such has become final. As argued by Mr. Bhuyan, the Defendant No.1 has not placed anything on record to show as to why the proposed amendment was not sought to be introduced earlier and is being attempted to be done at this belated stage. Significantly, Mr. Baug has relied upon a judgment passed by a division of this Court in the case of Maheswar Naik (Supra) , but the said judgment was passed in the year 1951. It cannot therefore, be said that the facts sought to be introduced by way of amendment were not within the knowledge of defendant No.1 for all these long years.

¶35

8. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is of the considered view that no ground has been made out to

¶36

Page 6 of 7

¶37

persuade this Court to allow the application for amendment of the written statement by Defendant No.1 at this belated stage.

¶38

9. Resultantly, the application for amendment is rejected.

¶39

(Sashikanta Mishra) Judge Puspanjali

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 30-Jul-2025 16:23:23

¶42

Page 7 of 7

Manjulata Satapathy v. Nimai Ch.Mohanty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjulata Satapathy v. Nimai Ch.Mohanty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akula Behera Vs Pabani Nayak

Bharati Behera Vs State and Ors.

Mina Majhi Vs State of Orissa

Sk.Sabakttulah Vs Sk.Attaulla

Pravati Bhatta Vs State of Odisha

Omkarnand Purohit Vs State of Odisha