Hari Nayak Vs Narayan Behera

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 23rd October, 2025 passed in connection with Election Petition No. 03 of 2022 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Harabhanga, Charichhak, Boudh, whereby, an application for amendment as per Annexure-3 in terms of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was allowed at the behest of opposite party No.1.

¶18

In fact, opposite party No.1 as the election petitioner moved such an application i.e. Annexure-3 seeking formal amendment to the petition to incorporate relevant provision, such as, Section 11(b) wrongly mentioned in the prayer portion as Section 11(c)(ii) of the Odisha Grama Panchayats Act, 1964.

¶19

Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that such a defect was pointed out at the very beginning

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

by filing the W.S. but it was never corrected. In so far as the plea for amendment advanced from the side of the petitioner with any such application as per Annexure-3 is concerned, it has been with inordinate delay and the fag end of the proceeding and therefore, it is further submitted that the learned court below could not have allowed the same, hence, for the said reason, the impugned order dated 14th October, 2025 at Annexure-10 is liable to be set aside.

¶22

Mr. Prahallad Sahu, learned counsel appears for opposite party No.1 today and files Vakalatnama, which is taken on record and on merits, it is submitted that formal amendment was requested with the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and it was duly considered by the learned court below leading to the passing of the impugned order i.e. Annexure-10 which is perfectly justified and hence, not to be disturbed.

¶23

Admittedly, the defect has been allowed to be removed by the learned court below long after the hearing of the proceeding was commenced. The said defect was earlier pointed out by the petitioner as made to reveal from the W.S., a copy of which is at Annexure-2 but the petitioner was at default and admittedly, the amendment has been proposed long after. The application as at Annexure-3 reveals that inadvertent mistake in the prayer portion of the election petition was requested to be corrected.

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

The contention of Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner is that there has been lack of due diligence on the part of the opposite party No.1 in seeking the amendment. Admittedly, at the stage of hearing, after closure of evidence from the side of opposite party No.1, such an application as per Annexure-3 has been received by the learned court below but on a reading of Annexure-10, the Court finds that the amendment has been allowed since it was unlikely to change the nature and character of the proceeding. Though, there has been delay in applying the amendment with regard to the relief sought for with the relevant provision and since the challenge is to the election of Sarpanch, hence, the proposed amendment related to Section 11(b) of the Act, the Court is of the conclusion that the learned court below did not commit any serious error in allowing the same. In any case, there has been evidence received and the petitioner is yet to adduce evidence before the learned court below. But, both the parties have been well aware of the nature of dispute and in the meantime, opposite party No.1 led the evidence. Under the above circumstances and considering the default on the part of opposite party No.1 and the nature of amendment, which is formal, according to the Court, although received much after commencement of the hearing, it should have been allowed and rightly so and therefore, the impugned order at Annexure-10 does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

¶26

Accordingly, it is ordered.

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order in I.A. No. 19312 of 2025 dated 18th November, 2025 is hereby vacated as a result. It is made clear that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Harabhanga, Charichhak, Boudh shall proceed with the hearing and to allow the petitioner to lead evidence in connection with Election Petition No. 03 of 2022 and dispose it of on merit and according to law.

¶29

10. A certified copy of the order be issued as per rules.

¶30

(R.K. Pattanaik) Judge

¶31

kabita

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Digitally Signed Signed by: KABITARANI MAJHI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 18-Dec-2025 15:47:33

¶34

Page 4 of 4

Hari Nayak v. Narayan Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Nayak v. Narayan Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basanti Sahoo Vs Ramadebi Routray

Jagannath Jani Vs State of Odisha

Debasis Pattnaik Vs State of Odisha

Sulochana Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Sai Pratik Das Vs State of Odisha

Prasanta Sahu @ Gunu Vs State of Odisha