Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2 (ORI)

Ashok Kumar Panda v. Jagannath Sahoo

2015-01-05

S.PANDA

body2015
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Though notice was issued to the opposite parties and the same was made sufficient none appeared for them. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 31.07.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jajpur in C.S No.7 of 2010 rejecting an application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C for amendment of the plaint. 3. On perusal of records it appears that the petitioners as plaintiff filed C.S No.7 of 2010 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jajpur for permanent injunction and for recovery of possession along with other reliefs. The opposite parties-defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement. Before commencement of hearing the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C for amendment of the plaint. In the proposed amendment it was stated that the defendants have encroached 675 sq. links from Suit Plot No.702 though they are claiming the said land as part of their Plot No.703. Therefore the plaintiffs intend to incorporate the prayer for declaration of right title and interest over that particular land and for demarcation of Southern and Eastern side boundary through court to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Further the plaintiffs want to correct the valuation of the suit and the court fees payable thereon. The defendants filed their objection to the said application taking a stand that the proposed amendment will change the nature and character of the suit and in order to prolong the case and to harass the defendants the application has been filed. The court below after hearing the parties by the impugned order rejected the application as the same was filed after settlement of issues. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the proposed amendment is necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Hence the impugned order need be interfered with. 5. Law is well settled that the amendment should be permissible but only if sufficient ground thereof is made out. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the proposed amendment is necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Hence the impugned order need be interfered with. 5. Law is well settled that the amendment should be permissible but only if sufficient ground thereof is made out. Hence the general principle is that Courts at any stage of the proceedings may allow either party to alter or amend the pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and all those amendments must be allowed which are imperative for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. A mere failure to set out even an essential fact does not by itself constitute a new cause of action. The plaintiff must prove the facts which establish his entitlement before he succeeds in the suit. Defective pleadings are generally curable. 5.1 It is also well established principle that the object of Court is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for mistakes they make in the conduct of their cases by deciding otherwise than in accordance with their right. Courts do not exist for the sake of discipline but for the sake of deciding matters in controversy. As soon as it appears that the way in which a party has framed his case will not lead to a decision of the real matter in controversy it is a matter of right on his part to correct it if it can be done without injustice and prejudiced cause can be compensated by cost. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide and cause injury which cannot be compensated. 6. In view of the discussions made hereinabove this Court while setting aside the impugned order dated 31.07.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jajpur in C.S No.7 of 2010 directs the court below to allow the amendment of the plaint subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to the defendants before the court below within a period of four weeks from today. The Writ Petition along with Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of. The interim order dated 14.11.2014 passed by this Court in Misc. Case No.18545 of 2013 stands vacated. Ordered accordingly.