KALANDI RANA Vs. SRI SRI BIRAJA THAKURANI, JAJPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitioner, who was the appellant in R.F.A. No. 62 of 2006 being aggrieved with the order dated 14.9.2011 (Annexure -4) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jajpur in rejecting his prayer for amendment of the written statement has approached this Court for quashing the impugned order at Annexure -4.

(2.) I may mention here that Sri Sri Biraja Thakurani (the present opposite party in this writ petition) represented by the Managing Trustee, namely, the Sub -Divisional Officer, Jajpur had instituted Title Suit No.102 of 1986 impleading the present petitioner as defendant for declaration of right, title and interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land. It was also prayed by the plaintiff that the defendant has no right, title and interest over the house standing on the suit plot and to give vacant possession within a period to be fixed by the Court failing which he be evicted through the process of law and also for permanent injunction. The present petitioner who was defendant in the said suit contested the same by filing written statement. The suit was decreed on contest against the defendant and the defendant was directed to vacate the suit land and the house within six months failing which defendant would be at liberty to get the decree executed through the Court.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the said appeal, a petition was filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short C.P.C.) with a prayer for amending the written statement contending therein that because of inadvertence and bonafide mistake some material facts could not be stated in the written statement which could only be detected at the appellate stage. It is the case of the present petitioner that the proposed amendments would in no way change the nature and character of the suit in any manner nor would cause any prejudice to the respondent. The proposed amendment which was prayed to be incorporated in the written statement in para -15 is to the effect that "in the year 1955, Dhruba Rana was inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit land for agricultural purpose and it was agreed that in lieu of rent, Dhruba Rana, the lessee was to give flower to the Deity. Subsequent to lease, Dhruba constructed a house on the suit land in the year 1940 and resided there. Dhruba Rana was possessing the suit property as a tenant under the plaintiff and in lieu of rent supplied flowers to the Deity and acquired occupancy right over the suit land by the year 1947."