Hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking quashing of an order that dismissed a civil suit for non-compliance regarding amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the Court found no infirmity and dismissed the petition.
CMP dismissing the prayer to quash the order dated 22.09.2025 passed in C.S. No. 429 of 2023.
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.1740 of 2025 CNR No. ODHC010768772025
Kuni Nayak ...… Petitioner(s) Mr. Trilochan Panigrahi, Advocate
-Versus-
Rakesh Kumar Rout & ……. Opposite Party (s) Ors. Mr. Trilochan Nanda, Advocate
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
ORDER
10.09.2026
Order No.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. The Petitioner has filed this CMP with a prayer to quash the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nimapara in C.S. No.429 of 2023 under Annexure-5.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that suit bearing No. 429/23 was registered seeking declaration confirmation and possession and regarding valuation of suit property as per market value though is more than one crore. Defendant No.3/Petitioner moved an application under order 7 Rule 11(b) CPC which was allowed on dated 20.12.2024 by Civil Judge (Sr. Div) Nimapara and aggrieved party preferred revision 2/25 judgment in dismissal as for judgment dated 26.6.2025. But, the learned Trial Court without
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Sep-2026 15:29:12
withdrawing the suit on dismissing the same, due to noncompliance of order dated 20.12.2024 by the plaintiff allowed application under order 6 Rule 17 CPC on dated 22.09.25 in a cryptic manner which is perverse.
4. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereinbelow: -
“xxx xxxx xxx
Heard the submissions of learned counsel for both sides, perused the record, Including the proposed amendments. Order VI Rule 17 CPC are well settled that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the commencement of trial unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In the present case, It is not in dispute that the trial has not yet commenced. There Is no written statement on record and issues are yet to be framed. Therefore, the bar under the proviso does not operate strictly in the present circumstances. At the same time, it is equally well settled that an amendment which introduces an entirely new cause of action, fundamentally alters the character of the suit, or is mala fide or intended to prejudice the other party or delay proceedings must not be permitted. It is also found that while some proposed amendments are formal others may affect the nature and scope of the suit. The suit is at a tender stage and for the ends of justice, the plaintiffs
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Sep-2026 15:29:12
should be afforded an opportunity to place all relevant facts before the Court. Accordingly, the petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is hereby allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 300/-.
xxx xxx xxx”
5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the Petitioner and on going through the documents available on record, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nimapara in C.S. No.429 of 2023 under Annexure-5.
6. Accordingly, the CMP stands dismissed.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge
Gitanjali
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Signed by: GITANJALI NAYAK Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 11-Sep-2026 15:29:12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether dismissal of the civil suit in Annexure-5 by the trial court is perverse and infringes Order VI Rule 17 CPC?
Whether the High Court should interfere in the trial court's order allowing amendment and dismissing the suit?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kuni Nayak
Rakesh Kumar Rout
SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
