JUDGMENT : K.R. Mohapatra, J. - This writ petition has been filed assailing order dated 11.09.2017 (Annexure-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaleswar (for short 'the Civil Judge') in Election Misc. Case No. 2 of 2017, whereby learned Civil Judge allowed the prayer of the election petitioner (OP No. 1 herein) for amendment of the Election Petition. 2. In the said election petition (Election Misc. Case No. 2 of 2017), challenge has been made essentially to the election of opposite party No. 1 as a member of Panchayat Samiti of Analia Grama Panchayat of Bhogarai block, which was held on 13.02.2017. During pendency of the said election petition, opposite party No. 1 filed a petition (Annexure-4) under Order-6 Rule 17 of CPC for correction of some inadvertent typographical errors which crept in during drafting of the petition. The proposed amendments were as follows: "Proposed Amendments 1. The date "23.09.1999" appearing in Paragrpah-9 of the petition be substituted by the date "25.09.1999". 2. The name "Jagyaswini" and the name "Pragyanswari" written in Paragraph-9 of the petition be corrected to "Jajneswani" and "Tapaswini" respectively. 3. After the word "their" appearing in the 2nd sentence in Paragraph-9 of the petition the writings "Adhar Card as well as Census repot 25.10.2014" be deleted and in that place words "birth certificates" be written." The returned candidate (the writ petitioner) filed his objection contending inter alia that the petition for amendment is barred by limitation. The petition has been filed without any just cause. The petition for amendment has been filed after filing of the written statement to the election petition and commencement of trial. The election petitioner by virtue of the proposed amendment wants to take away the admission made in the election petition. There is no basis to change the dates and particulars given in the election petition. The averments and allegations made in the amendment petition are also incorrect. As such, the petition for amendment would not be maintainable. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition for amendment. 3. Learned Civil Judge, taking into consideration the nature of amendments proposed to be made in the Election petition as well as objection filed, allowed the petition for amendment vide order dated 11.09.2017 stating it to be formal in nature and that it would not change the nature and character of the Election petition. 4. Mr. 3. Learned Civil Judge, taking into consideration the nature of amendments proposed to be made in the Election petition as well as objection filed, allowed the petition for amendment vide order dated 11.09.2017 stating it to be formal in nature and that it would not change the nature and character of the Election petition. 4. Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that amendment petition would not be maintainable as the same was filed beyond the statutory period prescribed for filing of the election petition itself. By allowing the petition for amendment, learned Civil Judge has allowed the election petitioner to introduce new material facts beyond the prescribed period for filing of election petition. As such, the amendment sought for is barred by limitation and the same is not permissible in law. The impugned order has seriously prejudiced the election petitioner. As such, the same is not permissible in law and order under Annexure-1 is liable to be set aside. Mr. Bose, in support of his case, relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Dibakara Patra v. Jatadhari Mishra and others, reported in 2005 (II) OLR 628 ; Makardhwaja Mohanty v. Dharmabira Kanungo, reported in 2013 (Supp.-II) OLR 825 as well as decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash v. Nanhku and others, reported in AIR 2005 SC 2441 . 5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 (returned candidate) refuting the submissions of Mr. Bose submitted that there will be no material change in the election petition by virtue of amendment. The amendment was only meant for correcting the inadvertent typographical errors in the election petition, which crept in course of drafting the same. The names of the daughters of the returned candidates were not properly described due to ignorance of the election petitioner. Moreover, the election petitioner in support of the date of birth of alleged third child of the returned candidate, had initially relied on Adhar Card as well as Census report dated 25.10.2015. By virtue of amendment, he wants to rely upon the birth certificate issued by the competent authority in support of the date of birth of the child of the returned candidate, which is more authentic. The aforesaid amendments will neither change the nature and character of the election petition nor it would bring any material change in the election petition. By virtue of amendment, he wants to rely upon the birth certificate issued by the competent authority in support of the date of birth of the child of the returned candidate, which is more authentic. The aforesaid amendments will neither change the nature and character of the election petition nor it would bring any material change in the election petition. The plea of limitation was not taken in the objection of the returned candidate. Further, limitation prescribed for filing an election petition under Section 44-B of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 (for short, ?the Act?) cannot be a consideration for adjudicating the petition for amendment of the pleadings. In support of his case, Mr. Mishra placed reliance upon Rajen Kumar Parida v. Jameswar Mallick, reported in 2011 (Supp.-II) OLR 1090. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that by virtue of amendment, the election petitioner seeks to correct the date of birth of the first child of the returned candidate as 25.09.1999, in place of 23.09.1999. It appears to be a typographical error and change of date of birth of the first child of the returned candidate does not bring any material change to the election petition. At paragraph-4 of the written statement, annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-3, the returned candidate has categorically stated that the opposite party No. 4 (the returned candidate) is the father of only one child, namely Yangyaseny Paul. He does not have any other child, namely, Tejaswini Paul or Pragyanswani Paul. The election petitioner by virtue of amendment prayed for correction of names of children, he alleges to be of the returned candidate as 'Jajneswani' in place of 'Jagyaswini' and 'Tapaswini' in place of 'Pragyanswari'. When the returned candidate at paragraph-4 of his written statement has admitted to have only one child, namely, Yangyaseny Paul and has categorically pleaded that he has no second child, change of names of alleged second and third child of the returned candidate would not prejudice him in any way. Further, the election petitioner, in order to prove the date of birth of the alleged third child of the returned candidate, had initially relied upon the Adhar Card of the child as well as the Census report. Further, the election petitioner, in order to prove the date of birth of the alleged third child of the returned candidate, had initially relied upon the Adhar Card of the child as well as the Census report. Subsequently by virtue of amendment, he sought for an amendment to rely upon the birth certificate of alleged third child of the returned candidate to prove her parentage as well as the date of birth. The veracity of the allegation of the election petitioner to that effect requires adjudication by adducing both oral as well as documentary evidence. Mere pleadings of the election petitioner regarding the third child of the returned candidate relying either upon Adhar Card or Census report or Birth certificate, does not by itself proves such allegation. Thus, the amendment to that effect neither brings any material change to the election petition nor is it prejudicial to the case of returned candidate. Moreover, the returned candidate has been given liberty to file additional Written Statement and has also the liberty to adduce rebuttal evidence in support of his case. In such view of the matter, the amendment to the election petition will, in no manner, prejudice the returned candidate. It also does not bring any material change to the election petition, as alleged. 7. The next and most important contention of Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that, the amendment petition could not have been filed beyond the period of limitation provided for filing the election petition requires consideration. 8. The amendment petition was filed on 16.08.2017. Obviously the same was filed beyond the period of limitation provided for filing of the election petition under the Act. Perusal of the objection to the amendment petition filed by the returned candidate discloses that no specific plea with regard to the limitation in filing the amendment petition was taken by the returned candidate. Be that as it may, the question that arises for consideration as to whether such a petition could have been entertained beyond the period for filing the election petition under the provisions of the Act. Be that as it may, the question that arises for consideration as to whether such a petition could have been entertained beyond the period for filing the election petition under the provisions of the Act. Section 44-B of the said Act deals with presentation of election petition, which reads as follows: "44-B. Presentation of petitions-(1) The petition shall be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Section 44-L before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) having jurisdiction over the place at which the office of the Samiti is situated together with a deposit of two hundred rupees as security for costs within fifteen days after the day on which the result of the election was announced: Provided that if the office of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) is closed on the last day of the period of limitation as aforesaid the petition may be presented on the next day on which such office is open: Provided further that if the petitioner satisfies the Civil Judge (Senior Division) that sufficient cause existed for the failure to present the petition within the period aforesaid the Civil Judge (Senior Division) may in his discretion may condone such failure: Provided also that in cases where the result of the election was announced prior to the 26th day of January 1961, the aforesaid period of limitation shall be computed from the said date." (emphasis supplied) The 2nd proviso to Section 44-B (1) provides that if the election petitioner satisfies the Civil Judge that sufficient cause existed for failure to present the election petition within the limitation period, learned Civil Judge may at his discretion condone such delay. It is the submission of Mr. Bose that entertaining an application for amendment of the pleadings of election petition after the statutory period provided under Section 44-B(1) of the Act, would amount to introduction of new pleadings and material facts after the limitation period, which is not permissible in law. In support of his case, he relied upon a decision of Dibakar Patra (supra). Bose that entertaining an application for amendment of the pleadings of election petition after the statutory period provided under Section 44-B(1) of the Act, would amount to introduction of new pleadings and material facts after the limitation period, which is not permissible in law. In support of his case, he relied upon a decision of Dibakar Patra (supra). Although in the said case, election of Member of Zilla Parishad under the provisions of Orissa Zilla Parishad Act, 1991, was under challenge, this Court taking into consideration the provisions under Section 32 of the said Act, which stipulates that the provision under Section 44-B of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act would be applicable for presentation of an election petition under Section 32 of the Orissa Zilla Parishad Act, held as under: "7. So, the law on the subject is perfectly settled. Amendment of an election petition seeking amendment of material facts not pleaded earlier or introduction of new case is not permissible when the period of limitation prescribed for filing the election petition is over. 8. xx xx xx 9. Law is settled that amendment incorporating a fact, which was beyond the knowledge of the person seeking amendment, is permissible even at a later stage. Law is also fairly settled that in such contingency, the period of limitation will begin to run from the date of knowledge of the person concerned, if such person concerned under normal circumstance had no way of learning about the cause of action earlier. 10. xx xx xx 11. xx xx xx 12......In view of the ratio laid down in the decisions referred to above, such an amendment carrying new plea was not permissible beyond the period of limitation. Thus, the learned District Judge, Puri, committed legal error in allowing the amendment filed by opposite party No. 1." (emphasis supplied) He further relied upon the decision in the case of Kailash (supra), which is a case under the provisions of Representation of Peoples Act. On the contrary, Mr. Mishra, in support of his case, relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of reported in Rajen Kumar Parida (supra), wherein, this Court, considering the pari materia provisions under Section 31(1) of the Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 Act, held as follows:- "7. On the contrary, Mr. Mishra, in support of his case, relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of reported in Rajen Kumar Parida (supra), wherein, this Court, considering the pari materia provisions under Section 31(1) of the Grama Panchayats Act, 1964 Act, held as follows:- "7. Since as per the second proviso to Section 31(1) an original election petition can be entertained if the petitioner satisfies the Court by showing sufficient cause for his failure to present the petition within the period of stipulated 15 days, there is no reason as to why the said provision shall not apply for introducing a new ground of challenge to the election of the returned candidate by way of amendment in a petition originally filed within time. In his amendment petition, the opposite party has clearly stated that the disqualification of the petitioner for holding an office of profit as a lecturer in the Indira Gandhi Mahila Mahavidyalaya, which is undisputedly an aided institution, was not within his knowledge at the time of filing of the election petition. This assertion of the opposite party has not been disputed or challenged in the objection filed by the petitioner to the amendment petition. Though the Court below has not specifically stated to have condoned the delay in entertaining a new ground by way of amendment, but it has taken note of the fact of lack of knowledge on the part of the opposite party about the disqualification of the petitioner at the time of filing of original application. If a fresh election petition challenging the election of the petitioner on the new ground of his disqualification can be entertained by condonation of delay, the trial Court has appropriately allowed the amendment by way of incorporation of the new ground in Original Application to avoid multiplicity of proceedings." (emphasis supplied) 9. In view of the ratio decided in the aforesaid case law, there remains no iota of doubt that a petition for amendment of the election petition under the Act can be entertained even after expiry of the period of limitation provided for filing of an election petition on showing sufficient cause. Even new ground of challenge can be introduced by way of amendment of the election petition after the statutory period of filing an election petition upon showing sufficient cause thereto. Even new ground of challenge can be introduced by way of amendment of the election petition after the statutory period of filing an election petition upon showing sufficient cause thereto. The ratio decided in the case of Kailash (supra) is not applicable to the case at hand, as the same is under the provisions of Representation of Peoples Act, which has no application to the case at hand. Thus, amendment of pleadings of election petition cannot be an absolute bar, which can never be the intent or object of the statute. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case at hand, the election petitioner had only sought for correction of typographical errors, change of names of the children, alleged to be of returned candidate as well as the documents to be relied upon to prove the date of birth of the alleged third child of the returned candidate. As held earlier, it is neither a new plea/ground nor brings any material change to the election petition. Learned Civil Judge, upon being satisfied with the sufficiency of cause for amendment petition, has allowed the same. Thus, the amendments in question can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be barred by limitation. 10. Mr. Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision in the case of Makardhwaja Mohanty (supra) further contends that the trial of election petition commences from the date of receipt of the election petition by the Court and continues till the date of its decision and that since the amendment petition has been filed after trial in election petition has commenced, the same would be hit by proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, in absence of any specific plea of exercise of due diligence. Section 44-F of the Act deals with the procedure to be followed by learned Civil Judge while dealing with a petition under Section 44-B of the Act. It read as follows: "44F. Procedure before the [Civil Judge (Senior Division)].-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder every election petition shall be tried by the [Civil Judge (Senior Division)] as nearly may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) to the trial of suits. Procedure before the [Civil Judge (Senior Division)].-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder every election petition shall be tried by the [Civil Judge (Senior Division)] as nearly may be in accordance with the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) to the trial of suits. (2) The [Civil Judge (Senior Division)] shall not be required to record or to have the evidence recorded in full but shall make a memorandum of the evidence sufficient in his opinion for the purpose of deciding the case. (3) The [Civil Judge (Senior Division)] for the purpose of deciding any issue, shall receive so much evidence, oral or documentary, as he considers necessary and may require the production of any evidence. (4) The [Civil Judge (Senior Division)] may at any stage of the proceedings, require the petitioner to give further security for the payment of all costs incurred or which is likely to be incurred by any opposite party and if within the time fixed by him or within such further time as he may allow such security is not furnished, he may dismiss the petition. (5) No witness or other person shall be required to disclose the name of the person for whom he has voted at an election. (6) The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to apply in the trial of an election petition. (7) Notwithstanding anything in any enactment to the contrary no document shall be inadmissible in evidence on the ground that it is not duly stamped or registered. (8) Reasonable expenses incurred by any person in attending to give evidence may be allowed to such person which shall unless the [Civil Judge (Senior Division)] directs, be deemed to be part of the costs. (8) Reasonable expenses incurred by any person in attending to give evidence may be allowed to such person which shall unless the [Civil Judge (Senior Division)] directs, be deemed to be part of the costs. (9) Any order as to costs passed by the [Civil Judge (Senior Division)] shall be executed by him on application made in that behalf in the same manner and by the same procedure as if it were a decree for the payment of money passed by himself in a suit." (emphasis supplied) It provides that subject to the provisions of the Act, an election petition under the Act may be tried by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), as nearly may be possible in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Again, Section 44-H of the Act provides for the power of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in trying an election petition. It reads as follows: "44H. Powers of [Civil Judge (Senior Division)]-The [Civil Judge (Senior Division)] shall have the powers which are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) when trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely : (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of witnesses and requiring the deposit of their expenses; (c) compelling the production of documents; (d) examining witnesses on oath; (e) granting adjournments; (f) reception of evidence taken on affidavit; and (g) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses, and may summon and examine suo motu any person whose evidence appears to it to be material; and shall be deemed to be a Civil Court within the meaning of Sections 480 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898)." 11. A conjoint reading of both the provisions makes it abundantly clear that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 will be applicable as nearly as possible to a trial of the election petition, more particularly in respect of matters under Section 44-H of the Act. Even if it is considered that the trial of an election petition commences on presentation of the petition, the rigours of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. will not be applicable to an election petition, as section 44-H of the Act specifies the matters to which Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is applicable. Even if it is considered that the trial of an election petition commences on presentation of the petition, the rigours of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. will not be applicable to an election petition, as section 44-H of the Act specifies the matters to which Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is applicable. Thus, the restriction under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC is not strictly applicable to an election petition filed under Section 44-B of the Act. As such, the contention raised by Mr. Bose is not acceptable. 12. Taking into consideration the discussions made above, I find no infirmity in the impugned order under Annexure-1. Thus, the same warrants no interference. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No cost. Final Result : Dismissed