KUMAR CHANDRA MISHRA Vs. RAJKISHORE MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order.

(2.) Order dated 8.3.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Kendrapara in T.S No.29 of 2002 rejecting the petition filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint has been assailed in this writ petition.

(3.) Plaintiffs valued the suit at Rs. 5,500/-. The defendants though challenged the valuation in their written statement, the plaintiffs did not take early steps for enhancing the valuation by way of amendment. The suit proceeded to trial and at the stage of argument the plaintiffs filed a petition for amendment of the plaint for raising the valuation of the suit in the year 2002. Apart from taking objection to the said amendment the defendants also filed a memo to the effect that they did not want to raise and contest the issue of valuation. Accordingly, the Trial Court vide order dated 10.12.2002 rejected the amendment petition filed by the plaintiffs and also directed for treating the memo filed by the defendants as part of their pleadings. That order has become final. Subsequent thereto the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 23 rule 1, CPC for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit and the said petition was rejected on 13.11.2003. A revision carried against that order also met with the same fate. The order was also subsequently challenged by the plaintiffs before this Court in WP(C) No. 10156 of 2004. The writ petition was withdrawn on the submission that the plaintiff-petitioners would file amendment petition before the Trial Court. While allowing withdrawal of the writ petition this Court observed that the amendment petition to be filed by the plaintiffs shall be dealt with in accordance with law. Thereafter, the present amendment petition was filed before the Trial Court for enhancing the valuation of the suit from Rs. 5,500/- to Rs. 55,000/- on the assertion that the defendants have challenged the original valuation made in the plaint. The amendment has been refused by the impugned order on the ground that if allowed it would change the nature and character of the suit and that in the meantime after closure of trial the suit is posted for argument.