The High Court dismissed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition challenging an order rejecting plaint amendment. The court held that entertaining the petition was inappropriate as the underlying suit had advanced with evidence recorded and a defendant died unrepresented.
CMP dismissed; interim stay vacated; misc case disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CMP No.1730 of 2016
[CNR No.- ODHC010234862016 ]
1. Jyotikanta Panda
2. Bibhuti Prasad Panda
…. Petitioners
Ms. Debabala Nayak, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B. Panigrahi, Advocate
-versus-
1. Mahesh @ Maheswar Ratha
2. Nigamananda Ratha
3. Mantu Ratha
4. Prem @ Premananda Ratha
…. Opp. Parties
CORAM:
HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO ORDER
Order No.
10.09.2026
06.
(Through hybrid Mode)
05.11.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bargarh in C.S. No. 50 of 2011 (Annexure-4), rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint.
on behalf of learned counsel for the Petitioner to obtain
instructions. On the same day, a report had been called for
Page 1 of 3
from the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bargarh regarding present status of Civil Suit No. 50 of 2011 and if there have been any developments in the suit after 05.11.2016.
and cross-examined on 03.10.2023. On 07.11.2023 evidence from the side of the plaintiff was closed. The substitution of
Page 2 of 3
defendant No.1 Mahesh @ Maheswar Ratha has been allowed on 24.09.2024. The matter had been sent for mediation on 04.07.2026 but D.L.S.A., Bargarh vide letter dated 01.08.2026,
had intimated the court regarding failure of mediation. On 14.08.2026, defendant No.3 has been examined as D.W.1 and now the case is posted to 05.09.2026 for further crossexamination of D.W.1.
(Savitri Ratho) Judge
Madhusmita
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 10-Sep-2026 19:46:34
Page 3 of 3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Civil Court should entertain a petition challenging an order rejecting amendment of plaint when the affected suit has progressed with evidence recorded and a defendant died without substit
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency and Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationReferred¶29
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency and Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jyotikanta Panda
Bibhuti Prasad Panda
Mahesh @ Maheswar Ratha
Nigamananda Ratha
Mantu Ratha
Prem @ Premananda Ratha
Savitri Ratho
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
