Santilata Prusty Vs Nalini Sahu

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner (Plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.15 of 2011) against the O.Ps (Defendants in the suit vide C.S. No.15 of 2011) praying for quashing (setting aside) the impugned order dated 27.12.2021 passed in C.S. No.15 of 2011 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar.

¶19

2. The factual backgrounds of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition, which prompted the Petitioner for filing of the same is that, the Petitioner being the Plaintiff filed the suit vide C.S. No.15 of 2011 against the O.Ps arraying them as Defendants in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar praying for partition of the suit properties.

¶20

In that suit for partition vide C.S. No.15 of 2011, after closure of evidence from the side of the Plaintiff, she (Plaintiff) filed a petition on dated 11.08.2021 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C., 1908 praying for inclusion/insertion of Plot No.267 Ac.0.550 dec. under Khata No.39 in Mouza Saharaposhi in the

¶21

C.M.P. No.103 of 2022

¶22

Page 2 of 10

¶23

suit schedule properties for its partition along with the included suit properties between her (Plaintiff) and Defendants stating that, after the death of the recorded tenants thereof i.e. Sakuntala Sahu (Defendant No.11) and Taramani Sahu (Defendant No.12), the said properties vide Plot No.267 under Khata No.39 has become the joint properties of the Plaintiff and Defendants, for which, the same is liable to be partitioned along with other suit properties, because, they (Plaintiff and Defendants) are the successors of deceased Sakuntala Sahu and Taramani Sahu.

¶24

To which, the Defendants objected stating in their objection that, at the belated stage of the suit i.e. after closure of evidence from the side of the Plaintiff, such amendment sought for by the Plaintiff cannot be allowed, as during evidence from the side of the Plaintiff, the R.o.R. vide Khata No.39 has already been marked as Ext.10 and previously, same nature of application of the Petitioner has already been rejected. For which, the petition for amendment of the Plaintiff is liable to be rejected.

¶25

3. After hearing from both the sides, the learned Trial Court,

¶26

as per impugned order dated 27.12.2021, rejected to the Petition

¶27

C.M.P. No.103 of 2022

¶28

Page 3 of 10

¶29

dated 11.08.2021 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C, 1908 of

¶30

the Plaintiff assigning the reasons that,

¶31

“when the Plaintiff has not taken prompt step to amend the plaint for insertion of Plot No.267 under Khata No.39 in Mouza Saharaposhi for partition and when the evidence from the side of the Plaintiff has already been closed and when the documents on her behalf has already been exhibited, then at this stage, if the proposed amendment sought for by the Plaintiff will be allowed, the same will cause prejudice to the Defendants”.

¶32

4. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of rejection to the Petition dated 11.08.2021 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. of the Plaintiff passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar on dated 27.12.2021 in C.S. No.15 of 2011, she (Plaintiff) challenged the same by filing this CMP under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing (setting aside) the above impugned order dated 27.12.2021 passed in C.S. No.15 of 2011 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Keonjhar.

¶33

C.M.P. No.103 of 2022

¶34

Page 4 of 10

¶35

5. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the

¶36

Petitioner (Plaintiff) and the learned counsel for the O.P. Nos.3 to 10 (Defendant Nos.3 to 10).

¶37

6. In order to assail the impugned order, the learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the following decision:-

¶38

In a case between Dinesh Goyal @ Papu Vrs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) and others decided in Special Leave Petition (civil) No.30324/2019 .

¶39

7. On the contrary, in support of the impugned order, the

¶40

learned Counsel for the O.Ps relied upon the following

¶41

decisions:-

¶42

(i) In a case between Nagarmal Agrawal Vrs. Akhapati Shashi Bhushan Patra and others decided in C.M.P. No.1018 of 2015. (II) In a case between Gangabati Birgunthia and another Vrs. Bijay Kumar Moor Gokulananda Patel and others reported in 2014 (I) OLR 806. (III) In a case between Vidyabai and others Vrs. Padmalata and another reported in 2009 (I) OLR (SC) 737. (IV) In a case between Akshaya Kumar Rout Vrs. Pitambar Rout and another decided in CMP No.958 of 2023.

¶43

8. It is the undisputed case of the Parties that, the Petitioner being the Plaintiff in the suit for partition vide C.S. No.15 of 2011, she had filed petition under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C., 1908 on dated 11.08.2021 praying for inclusion of Plot No.267 under Khata No.39 in Mouza Saharaposhi with the suit properties for partition of the same along with the other suit properties stating

¶44

in her petition that, after the death of the recorded tenants of

¶45

C.M.P. No.103 of 2022

¶46

Page 5 of 10

¶47

Khata No.39 i.e. Sakuntala Sahu (Defendant No.11) and Taramani Sahu (Defendant No.12), she (Plaintiff) and Defendants being their successors, they have inherited the said properties under Khata No.39, for which, they are entitle under law for partition of the same.

¶48

9. It is the settled propositions of law that,

¶49

“ in a suit for partition, the status of all the Parties are as good as Plaintiff. The main object of amendment of the Plaint/Written statement as per Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C, 1908 is to minimize the litigation between the Parties and to ensure that, all the controversies and issues between the Parties are decided in same and one proceeding for no other reason, but, only in order to avoid the multiplicity of litigations between the Parties. The proposed amendment should ordinarily be allowed, unless the same cause injustice or prejudice to other side, which cannot be compensated in terms of cost.”

¶50

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:-

¶51

(i) In a case between Lakshmi Vrs. Sundararajan reported in 2020 AIR CC 2885 that,

¶52

while, deciding application under order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C, 1908, it cannot be decided as to whether schedule mentioned property is joint family property or self-acquired property, which can only be decided by conducting full-fledged trial. Rejection of application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C., set aside.

¶53

C.M.P. No.103 of 2022

¶54

Page 6 of 10

¶55

(ii) In a case between T.Pedda Veeranna and others Vrs. P.Lakshmi Devi reported in 2011 (1) Civ.C.C. 371 (A.P.) that,

¶56

In a suit for partition, by proposed amendment, Plaintiff wants to include more properties, which were not discovered at the time of filing of the suit. Held, proposed amendment does not take away any right accrued to Defendants due to lapse of time, nor does it change nature of the case. Amendment is essential to adjudicate real question in controversy and to avoid the multiplicity of litigation. Amendment allowed.

¶57

(iii) In a case between Life Insurance Corporation of India Vrs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another reported in 2022 (4) Civ.C.C. 540 (S.C.) that,

¶58

Amendment as per Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C.,1908 should ordinarily be allowed, unless they cause injustice or prejudice to other side and that cannot be compensated in terms of cost, because, the purpose of allowing amendment is to minimize the litigations and to ensure that, all the issues between the Parties are decided in the same proceeding.

¶59

(iv) In a case between Motamarri Murali Mohan Rao Vrs. Motammmari Ramchandra Rao and others reported in 2018 (3) Civ.C.C. 221 (Telangana and Andra Pradesh) that,

¶60

where the defendant wants to include certain properties, which are liable for partition not included, the defendant is entitled by filing a written statement asking to consider those left out properties for partition.

¶61

(v) In a case between Sushil Rishi Vs. Vinod Rishi and Others reported in 2015 (Suppl.) Civ.C.C. 592 that,

¶62

In a suit for partition, amendment sought to incorporate the left out properties, after the issues have been framed, but, evidence has not been led. Refusal to allow amendment would leave the scope for filing fresh suit regarding left over properties. No prejudice would be caused to either party, if amendment is allowed particularly when suit is at its infancy stage. Amendment allowed.

¶63

(vi) In a case between Smt. Janaki Vrs. Smt. Lalitha and others reported in 2016 (1) Civ.C.C. 645 that,

¶64

In a final decree proceeding, permission sought for under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. to add left out property. Held, inclusion of left out properties in the final decree proceeding is justified and proper. However, Parties opposing such inclusion would be given an opportunity to file written statement as against such inclusion and Court is expected to pass one more preliminary decree in respect of the newly included properties deciding as to whether the said property is liable for partition, if so, what exactly is the share of the Parties.

¶65

C.M.P. No.103 of 2022

¶66

Page 7 of 10

¶67

10. Here in this matter at hand, when, the Petitioner being the Plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.15 of 2011 had filed the petition on dated 11.08.2021 after closure of evidence on her behalf

¶68

praying for an amendment of the plaint in order to include Plot No.267 as the suit property and when, the Purpose/object of an amendment in the plaint is to minimize the litigation between the Parties and to ensure that, all the controversies and issues between the Parties relating to their all properties shall be decided in same and one proceeding and the proposed amendment should not ordinarily be rejected, if the same will not cause any injustice or prejudice to other side and in case of filing of any petition for amendment in delay, the same can be compensated in terms of cost, then at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the learned Civil Judge, (Sr.Div.), Keonjhar should not have rejected to the Petition dated 11.08.2021 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C., 1908 of the Petitioner for insertion/inclusion of Plot No.267 as suit property for partition even after closure of evidence from the side of the Petitioner/Plaintiff, as the inclusion of Plot No.267 for partition by way of an amendment shall minimize the litigation between

¶69

C.M.P. No.103 of 2022

¶70

Page 8 of 10

¶71

the Parties and the said amendment shall never cause any injustice or prejudice to the O.Ps/Defendants, but, the learned Civil Judge, (Sr.Div.), Keonjhar has not done so.

¶72

For which, the reasons assigned by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr.Div.), Keonjhar for rejection of the petition dated 11.08.2021 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C, of the Petitioner in the impugned order dated 27.12.2021 cannot be sustainable under law.

¶73

11. Therefore, there is justification under law for making interference with the same through this Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Petitioner (Plaintiff).

¶74

12. So, there is merit in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Petitioner (Plaintiff). The same is to be allowed.

¶75

13. In result, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Petitioner is allowed on contest.

¶76

14. The impugned order dated 27.12.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Sr.Division), Keonjhar in C.S. No.15 of 2011 is quashed/set aside.

¶77

C.M.P. No.103 of 2022

¶78

Page 9 of 10

¶79

15. The Petition dated 11.08.2021 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. of the Petitioner (Plaintiff) for inclusion of Plot No.267 Ac.0.550 dec. under Khata No.39 in Mouza Saharaposhi as suit property for partition of the same along with the properties already in the said suit is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.3000/- (rupees three thousand) by the Petitioner to the contesting O.P. Nos.3 to 10 (Defendant Nos.3 to 10 in the suit).

¶80

16. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit vide C.S. No.15 of 2011 as expeditiously as possible as per law giving priority to the year of filing of the suit without providing unnecessary adjournments to the Parties.

¶81

17. As such, this CMP filed by the Petitioner (Plaintiff) is disposed of finally.

¶82

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE

¶83

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack 28.01.2026// Binayak Sahoo Jr. Stenographer

¶84

Signature Not Verified

¶85

Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 02-Feb-2026 12:18:43

¶86

C.M.P. No.103 of 2022

¶87

Page 10 of 10

Santilata Prusty v. Nalini Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santilata Prusty v. Nalini Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagirathi Hans Vs State of Odisha

Pyarilal Patel Vs State of Odisha

Sri Ram Shg,Sunathara, Ganjam Vs State of Odisha

Mahavir Shg, Cuttack Vs State of Odisha

Mamata Pattnaik @ Mamatarani Pattanayak Vs Tapan Kiran Pattnaik @ Tapan Patnaik

Malati Dehury Vs A.D.M. Keonjhar