MONALISHA MISHRA Vs. SANJIB KUMAR MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Order dtd. 17/2/2024 (Annexure-6) passed in C.S. No.207 of 2021 is under challenge in this CMP, whereby learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Puri allowed an application filed by Defendant No.3-Opposite Party No.3 for amendment of his written statement.

(3.) Mr. Kar, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the suit has been filed for a declaration that the sale deed dtd. 7/11/2003 executed in the name of Defendant No.1 is fraudulent and not binding on the Plaintiffs. They also prayed for setting aside the R.O.Rs. in respect of Khata No.505/161 of the suit property, permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction and other consequential relief. During pendency of the suit, the Defendant No.1 filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of his written statement, which was allowed vide order under Annexure-6. By virtue of the proposed amendment, the Defendant No.1 tried to introduce a plea questioning the identity of the deceased Plaintiff No.1, namely, Ashamani Mishra, wife of late Michhu Mishra. In the written statement, nowhere the Defendant No.1 raised any doubt with regard to the identity the deceased Plaintiff No.1. Thus, amendment sought for is an afterthought and by virtue of the proposed amendment, the Defendant No.1 is trying to take away the admission made in his written statement. Learned trial Court although took note of the objection raised by the Plaintiffs-Petitioners, but failed to discuss the same and only by relying upon the ratio decided in Life Insurance Corporation of India ' v- Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. and another, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1128, allowed the petition for amendment holding that trial of the suit has not yet commenced. It is his submission that by virtue of the proposed amendment, the Plaintiffs-Petitioners are seriously prejudiced. Hence, the impugned order under Annexure-6 being cryptic one should be set aside.