NARAHARI PANDA Vs. AVIRAM PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is directed against an order dated 21.1.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore allowing the application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code (for short the "C.P.C.") filed by the present opposite party to amend the memorandum of appeal. As it appears from the application so filed, the applicant, i.e., the present opposite party wanted to implead Biswajit Panda, aged about 5 years, the minor son of present petitioner as a respondent. The facts narrated in this application tend to reveal that the present opposite party is the plaintiff and filed the suit along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. praying for an ad interim order of injunction against the present opposite party.

(2.) UPON hearing the parties, the trial court refused to grant injunction against which an appeal was filed before the District Judge, Balasore. During the pendency of the said appeal an application was filed by the appellant seeking an amendment of the appeal memo for impleading the name of one Biswajit Panda as one of the respondents. According to the appellant -petitioner, it is Biswajit Panda, who is the minor son of the Present petitioner and in whose name the property in dispute stands recorded. Accordingly, the District Judge, Balasore allowed the said application on the finding that the amendment can be made at any stage of the proceeding of the suit including appeal and thus allowed the aforesaid amendment.

(3.) FOR the better appreciation, the provisions of Rule 17 of Order 6, C.P.C. are reproduced below :