Maheswar Das vs Shridhar Rout And Others …. Opposite … on 4 July, 2025

Orissa High Court

Maheswar Das vs Shridhar Rout And Others …. Opposite … on 4 July, 2025

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                               CMP No. 1422 of 2023
            Maheswar Das                          ....                    Petitioner
                                                                Represented by
                                                           Mr. U.Pati, Advocate


                                             -Versus -
            Shridhar Rout and Others               ....             Opposite Parties
                                                                   Represented by
                                                         Mr. T.K. Mishra, Advocate
                        CORAM:
                          JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER_
04.07.2025

Order No.
6 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the opposite parties.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff in C.S. No.527 of 1995. He is
aggrieved by order dated 07.10.2023 passed by the court below
rejecting his application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of
CPC. It appears that after conclusion of evidence, the petitioner
filed the application to permit him to amend his pleadings and to
introduce certain facts as also to add several parties. It was stated
that the persons proposed to be impleaded as parties are necessary
parties and that the facts proposed to be introduced are material for
just decision of the case. The court below, as evident from the
impugned order, first considered the factors that are required to be
taken into consideration while considering an application for
amendment. The court below then referred to the facts of the case
and found that it was the fourth amendment petition filed by the

Page 1 of 2
plaintiff, in the suit instituted in the year 1995. The plaintiff had
already amended his plaint on 30.09.2004 and 03.08.2018. His third
application for amendment was rejected on 20.01.2023. It was
therefore not satisfied that the amendment was required to be
allowed.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going
through the reasoning adopted by the trial Court, this Court finds
nothing wrong therein so as to be persuaded to interfere. It is
settled law that while the courts may adopt liberal approach in the
matter of amendment of pleadings so as to ensure a just decision of
the case, the same never gives a license to a party to introduce
changes to his original pleading on multsiple occasions and at any
time as he pleases, as otherwise it would be a never-ending process.
This Court is therefore, not inclined to entertain the CMP, which is
dismissed. The court below is directed to conclude the trial of the
suit within four months.

(Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge

B.C. Tudu

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 08-Jul-2025 12:24:46

Page 2 of 2