Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1060 (ORI)

Jujesti Dalei v. Guru Charan Behera

2016-11-08

A.K.RATH

body2016
ORDER : A. K. Rath, J. 1. This petition challenges the order dated 2.7.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandikhole in C.S. No. 54/12. By the said order, learned Trial Court rejected the application of the defendants to amend the written statement. 2. The opposite party as plaintiff instituted the suit for permanent injunction impleading the petitioners as defendants. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. While the matter stood thus, the defendants filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the written statement. In the proposed amendment, the defendants intend to change the plot No. and area in paragraph 7 and number of execution of sale deed. Learned Trial Court rejected the same. 3. Heard Mr. D. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the opposite party. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proposed amendment is formal in nature and the same will no way change the nature and character of the suit. 5. Per contra, Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that after examination of the plaintiffs, the proposed amendment had been filed. Learned Trial Court is quite justified in rejecting the same. 6. On the cursory perusal of the application for amendment, it is evident that the same is formal in nature. Changing the plot No. and area of sale deed will no way change the nature and character of the suit. But one aspect cannot be brushed aside that some of the witnesses have been examined. 7. In view of the same, the order dated 2.7.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Chandikhole in C.S. No. 54/12 is quashed. The proposed amendment is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) to Mr. S.S.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the opposite party within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, this order shall be automatically recalled. It is open to the parties to adduce further evidence. Since the suit is of the year 2012, learned Trial Court shall do well to conclude the hearing of the suit by end of March, 2017. 8. The petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.