HARACHAND NAYAK Vs. RAMAMANI MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are plaintiffs in T.S. No. 226/1986 pending before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jaipur. During pendency of the suit a petition was filed under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC to amend the plaint. The same has been rejected mainly on the ground that in consonance with the provision of Order 6, Rule 17, CPC after commencement of hearing of a suit, no amendment should be allowed. According to Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, the conclusion arrived at by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jajpur is not in consonance with law.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length. Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 deals with repeal and savings. Sub-section (1) of 'Section 16 stipulates that any amendment made, or any provision inserted in the principal Act by a State Legislature or High Court before the commencement of this Act shall, except in so far as such amendment or provisions are consistent with the principal Act as amended by this Act, stand repealed'. Sub-section 2(b) of Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 reads as follows :

(3.) The aforesaid provisions make it abundantly clear that the proviso which was inserted in the year 2002 by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 shall not apply to suits which were filed earlier. This Court is also fortified by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad v. Town Municipal Council reported in 2007 (1) Orissa LR (SC) 406.