BHIKARI CHARAN MISHRA Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

(2.) Order dtd. 1/11/2022 (Annexure-7) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patnagarh in Civil Suit No.189 of 2016 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby an application filed for amendment of the plaint by the Defendant No.1/Petitioner, has been rejected.

(3.) Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the suit has been filed by Opposite Party No.1 for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and for cost. The Defendant No.1 appeared and filed written statement stating that Kasinath Patra is father of the Plaintiff-Santosh Kumar Patra, who died since more than one year back. In the year 1994, family members of the Plaintiff were performing 'Kartika Brata'. Kasinath Patra has gifted away the schedule of land to the written statement to the Defendant No.1 on the Kartika Purnami day of 1994 in lieu of his service as Kula Purohita of his family with the knowledge of all. He also delivered possession of the schedule land to the Defendant No.1 and from that date he is in possession over the same exercising his right, title and interest thereon. He also filed counterclaim praying inter alia declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land. After closure of the evidence of the Plaintiff, when the Defendant No.1/Petitioner was preparing to lead evidence, it came to light that Advocate engaged by Defendant No.1 did not act properly to defend and safeguard his interest. It also came to light that some relevant facts were not pleaded in the written statement. Hence, an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed for amendment of the written statement filed by Defendant No.1. Amongst all, in para-6, the Defendant No.1 proposed to incorporate the pleading as under:-