Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 161 (ORI)

SARASWATI NAIK v. AKULI CHARAN NAIK

2002-03-14

P.K.TRIPATHY

body2002
JUDGMENT : P.K. Tripathy, J. - This Civil Revision is disposed of at the stage of admission after hearing learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 382 of 1991 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kendrapara. Petitioner filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. praying for interim injunction and that was registered as Misc. Case No. 255 of 1991 in the said Court. When the prayer for interim injunction was refused by that Court petitioner filed a Misc. Appeal and presently that is pending in the Court of Addl. District Judge, Kendrapara vide Misc. Appeal No. 69 of 1995. An application was filed by the petitioner to amend the Misc. petition of Misc. Case No. 255 of 1991 with the prayer to insert the pleading regarding acquisition of the property on the basis of gift deed in the year 1935. That prayer was turned down by the learned Additional District Judge on 17.1.2000 on the ground that such a plea advanced by the petitioner is inconsistent and contradictory to his plea of title and possession on the basis of sale deed of 1950 as per the plaint averment. That is the principal reason for refusal to allow the application for amendment. Being aggrieved by that order petitioner has preferred this revision u/s 115 C.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner states that an application for amendment of the plaint to incorporate such a plea having been filed by the plaintiff that is still subjudice in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division). If that be so, plaintiff-petitioner should pursue that application in as much as Court is to consider the question of existence of a prima facie case and other requirement on the basis of pleadings of the parties. Therefore, an application for amendment in the Misc. Case may not be necessary. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus states that a direction may be issued to the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kendrapara to dispose of that application for amendment expeditiously. Learned counsel for the defendant-opposite party has no objection to that proposal. 4. Therefore, an application for amendment in the Misc. Case may not be necessary. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus states that a direction may be issued to the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kendrapara to dispose of that application for amendment expeditiously. Learned counsel for the defendant-opposite party has no objection to that proposal. 4. Hence, it is directed that if application for amendment is pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) that be heard and disposed of in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to produce a certified copy of this order in that Court by 25th March, 2002. Both the parties may appear in that Court by that date and thereafter the amendment application be heard and disposed of most expeditiously in the aforesaid manner. While considering the application for amendment, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) shall consider it on its own merit and not being influenced by the observation by learned Additional District Judge of this Court. 5. Be that as it may, the Misc. Appeal being of the year 1995, the Additional District Judge is directed to hear and dispose of that appeal and report compliance by 30th April, 2002. 6. Send a copy of this order to learned Addl. District Judge, Kendrapara immediately.