Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 560 (ORI)

Gajalaxmi Chhotray v. Tripty Drinks (Pvt. ) Ltd.

2015-09-25

A.K.RATH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K.Rath, J By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, to quash the order dated 8.7.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khurda in T.S. No.205 of 2001. By the said order, the learned trial court rejected the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint. 2. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted a suit impleading the present opposite parties as defendants for decree of damages to the tune of Rs.11,24,000/-along with interest @ 18% per annum in the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khurda, which is registered as T.S. No.205 of 2001. After hearing was concluded, the suit was posted to 1.7.2004 for delivery of judgment. At this juncture, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 30.6.2004 to amend the plaint. In an elaborate order, the learned trial court rejected the application for amendment. 3. Heard Mr. Soumya Mishra, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr. S.P.Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Padmaja Pattnaik, learned Advocate for the opposite party no.1. 4. The sole question that hinges for consideration of this Court is as to whether an application for amendment of the plaint can be filed after the suit was posted for delivery of judgment ? 5. In Arjun Singh Vrs. Mohindra Kumar and others, AIR 1964 SC 993 , the apex Court held that where the hearing is completed, the parties have no further rights or privileges in the matter and it is only for the convenience of the Court that the Order XX Rule 1 CPC permits judgment to be delivered after an interval after the hearing is completed. There is no hiatus between the two stages of reservation of judgment and pronouncing the judgment. 6. Thus the irresistible conclusion is that there is no hiatus between the two stages of reservation of judgment and pronouncing the judgment. It is only for the convenience of the court that the pronouncing the judgment may be deferred. Thus no application for amendment could be moved after the arguments were heard and suit was closed for judgment. 7. The petition, sans any merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.