Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1411 (ORI)

Bhruguram Dash v. Ananda Mohan Dutta

2017-12-07

BISWANATH RATH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This matter involves challenge to the order allowing an application for amendment at the instance of the defendant by the trial court. 2. Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court to the pleadings already borne in the written statement at paragraph no.7(a) and the amendment sought for as appearing at page 19 of the brief, contended that for the amendment sought to be brought in, not only there is no attempt taking away of any admission but the same will rather facilitation effective adjudication of the suit. It is under the circumstance and taking to the observation made in the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there has been no proper consideration of the application for amendment at the instance of the defendant and Sri Samal, therefore, contends, rejection of the amendment application is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3. Learned counsel for the contesting opposite party nos.1, 3, 4 & 5, on the other hand, objecting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, taking this Court again to the averments made in the paragraph no.7(a) of the written statement and the amendment sought for, submitted that for the new pleadings brought by way of amendment, there has been an attempt for taking away the admission already there. Referring to two decisions (1) in the case of Jaspal Kaur Cheema & anr. versus M/s. Industrial Trade Links & Ors. etc. as reported in AIR 2017 SC 3995 and (2) in the case of State of Bihar and ors. versus Modern Tent House & Anr. as reported in AIR 2017 S.C. 4966 learned counsel for the opposite party nos.1, 3, 4 & 5 submitted that for the support of the decisions to the case of the plaintiff and for the observations made in the impugned order, there appears, there is no infirmity in the impugned order leaving no scope for this Court to interfere in the same. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos.1, 3, 4 & 5 further submitted that for the advancement of the suit at the stage of examination of some of the witnesses already concluded, it is submitted that at such stage, the amendment is allowed, then the evidence so recorded will become futile and there may be necessity of rolling back for further evidence. 5. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, the plea at paragraph no.7(a) of the written statement filed in the original stage reads as follows: “That the suit land was originally recorded in the name of Dadhi Baban Thakur Marfat Bhima Das having -/10/-annas 8 pahi interest Panchu Das having -/5/-annas 4 pahi interest in the revision settlement Record of rights. At the time of Revisional settlement these Bhima Das and Panchu Das were minors. So one Kayanananda Ghose and Baikuntha Nath Dutta were the care taker of the estate. Bhima Das and Panchu Das were uterize brothers both of them are sons of Muli Das. Bhima Das died issueless in the State of jointness with Panchu Das. So his 2/3rd interest devolved on Panchu. Panchu Das possessing the entire suit land owner thereof. It is pertinent to mention here that the suit land is the cultivable land. The record owner raised Sarada variety of paddy every year. Bhima Das died in or around 1924. Panchu Das was not in intelligent man. So he depends on these care taker for the maintenance of his estate. In the meantime C.S. operation in that locality started in the year 1926 which ended in the year 1929 and patta was published. Cunningly Bigyan Mohan Dutta recorded the suit land in him name. This fact was not known to Panchu das or his legal heirs.” Similarly, looking to the amendment application particularly at the proposed amendment portion, this Court finds, the following averments made in page 19 of the brief: “7 (a) (1) That the deity Dadhibaban Jew Thakur of village-Alkunda, is a public deity. The suit land belongs to deity Dadhi Baban Jew Thakur. The defendant no.1 to 6 are the (marfatdar) of the deity Dadhi Baban Jew Thakur. The suit land is acquired by the endowment commissioner, Bhubaneswar. The usufructs of the suit land issued seba puja of the deity. The defendants paid contribution to the endowment commissioner. The suit land is more than Rs.10,00,000/-” 6. In comparison of the pleadings available in both the above paragraphs indicated hereinabove, this Court nowhere finds, there is an attempt by the defendant in taking away the admission already there. Further, for the facts brought in by way of proposed amendment, this Court observes, if the amendment is allowed, the same will facilitate effective adjudication of the suit. In comparison of the pleadings available in both the above paragraphs indicated hereinabove, this Court nowhere finds, there is an attempt by the defendant in taking away the admission already there. Further, for the facts brought in by way of proposed amendment, this Court observes, if the amendment is allowed, the same will facilitate effective adjudication of the suit. Further, since the trial of the suit is still in process, in the event, the amendment is allowed, the plaintiff can be permitted to recall his witness to further examine and in such event, the defendant can also be permitted to further cross examine. Considering the decisions relied on by the opposite party nos.1, 3, 4 & 5, for the change in the fact situation in between the case at hand and the cases decided therein and for the observation of the court, the amendment is required for effective adjudication of the suit. This Court finds, both the decisions have no application to the case at hand. 7. For the above and as the parties have scope to contest the matter and looking to the proposed amendment and as this Court finds, by bringing the amended portion, there can be effective adjudication of the suit to avoid multiplicity of litigation, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order and consequently, sets aside the same and thereby, allows the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C at the instance of the defendant and permits the defendant to file the amended written statement within ten days hence. In the event, any application is filed before the trial court seeking recalling of the witnesses already examined, the same shall be allowed and the witnesses will also be allowed for examination and further examination by the respective parties. 8. The writ petition succeeds. No cost.