Dambarudhar Bai Vs Madhusmita Pattanaik

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the Petitioner praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 30.07.2024 passed in C.S. No.196 of 2023 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Women’s Court, Angul refusing to allow the proposed amendments under Order-6, Rule-17, C.P.C., 1908 sought for by the Petitioner (Plaintiff) on dated 20.03.2024 in the suit vide C.S. No.196 of 2023 on the ground that, the said proposed amendments are not relevant for proper adjudication of the suit vide C.S. No.196 of 2023.

¶21

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the Petitioner (plaintiff) and learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 (defendant No.1) and the learned Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3(defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit vide C.S. No.196 of 2023).

¶22

CMP No.1264 of 2024

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

3 . During the course of hearing of this CMP No.1264 of 2024, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, by way of a proposed amendment, the Petitioner (plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.196 of 2023) was not introducing any new things, but, such amendment was explanatory in nature. Because, in the proposed amendments, explanations were provided in detail relating to the averments made in the plaint for the insertion relating to the mala fide intention of the District Sub-Registrar, Angul for refusing to register the deed for sale adopting different ways.

¶25

To which, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties including the learned Standing Counsel for the state vehemently objected contending that, the proposed amendments were unnecessary and the same were not relevant for proper adjudication of the suit vide C.S. No.196 of 2023, because, some extraneous things (those were outside the scope of the suit) were trying to be inserted through amendment. For which, the rejection of the same through the

¶26

CMP No.1264 of 2024

¶27

Page 3 of 6

¶28

impugned order by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Women’s Court, Angul was proper.

¶29

So, the question of interfering with the same through this CMP No.1264 of 2024 filed by the Petitioner does not arise.

¶30

4. It is fairly submitted by the learned counsels of both the sides that, the hearing of the suit vide C.S. No.196 of 2023 has not been started. Before staring of the hearing of the suit, the Petitioner had sought for the aforesaid amendments in order to insert some additional averments in the plaint including the matter relating to the mala fide intention of the Sub-Registrar, Angul refusing to register the deed for sale.

¶31

5. The object of insertion of Order-6, Rule-17 of the CPC, 1908 into the statute book is for avoidance of multiplicity of litigations between the parties. Because, the intention of the legislature for insertion of the above provision into the statute

¶32

CMP No.1264 of 2024

¶33

Page 4 of 6

¶34

book i.e. CPC is to enable the Court to decide all the

¶35

controversies between the parties in one lis (suit).

¶36

6. When Prior to the hearing of the suit vide C.S. No.196 of 2023, the Petitioner in this CMP, i.e., plaintiff in the suit vide C.S. No.196 of 2023 had sought for proposed amendment as stated above, then at this juncture, in view of the above object of the provisions of Order-6 Rule-17 of the CPC, 1908, the said proposed amendment should not have been rejected by the learned Trial Court through the impugned order. Because, in case of allowing such amendment, the same will cause prejudice to no party. Rather the same will be in furtherance of rendering substantial justice to the parties.

¶37

So, there is justification under law for making interference with the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court in the suit vide C.S. No.196 of 2023, through CMP No.1264 of 2024 filed by the Petitioner.

¶38

CMP No.1264 of 2024

¶39

Page 5 of 6

¶40

7. As such, there is merit in this CMP No.1264 of 2024 filed

¶41

by the Petitioner, the same is allowed.

¶42

8. Therefore, the Petition dated 20.03.2024 under Order-6, Rule-17 of the C.P.C., 1908 filed by the Petitioner (Plaintiff) in the suit vide C.S. No.196 of 2023 is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/-to each set of the parties by the petitioner(plaintiff).

¶43

9 . As such, this CMP filed by the Petitioner is disposed of

¶44

finally.

¶45

(ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA) JUDGE

¶46

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 22 .04. 2026// Nitu Prava Prusty Jr. Stenographer

¶47

Signature Not Verified

¶48

Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CU TTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 10:35:01 CMP No.1264 of 2024

¶49

Page 6 of 6

Dambarudhar Bai v. Madhusmita Pattanaik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dambarudhar Bai v. Madhusmita Pattanaik

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

Raghunandan Singh Vs Laxmi Tiria, Addl. Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar

Lalit Kumar Das Vs State of Odisha

Baba Sidheswar Wshg Vs State of Odisha

Suryakanta Giri Vs Himansu Kumar Giri

Punyatoya Chakra Vs Ashish Thakare, I.A.S.

Sanjay Kumar Patra Vs State of Odisha