JOSEPH PANI & ANOTHER Vs. ROMAN CATHOLIC DOIOCESE OF BERHAMPUR REPRESENTED BY BISHOP SARAT CHANDRA NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Misc. Petition involves an order of rejection on an application under Order 6 rule 17 of C.P.C. at the instance of the defendant-petitioners appearing at Annexure-4.

(2.) Short background involved in the case is that the opposite party, as plaintiff filed C.S. No.8/2013 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Paralakhemundi against the present petitioners praying for eviction of the petitioners or any other persons claiming under them from the suit schedule premises and for delivery of possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff and/or his authorised agent. Plaintiff has also claimed compensation from the date of suit till actual delivery of possession of the suit schedule premises. On their appearance the defendants filed their written statement jointly denying the plaint allegation. After examination of the plaintiff witnesses got closed during course of evidence of D.W.3 coming to know that the suit property was purchased by some other persons of St. Marry Church, Chandiput by way of sale deeds and the said land wrongly recorded in the name of the plaintiff, the defendants instead of giving evidence filed amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. seeking amendment of their written statement. Application was seriously objected. Taking into consideration the plea of both the sides, the trial court rejected the application for amendment giving rise to the present Civil Misc. Petition.

(3.) Sri Pati, learned counsel for the petitioners (defendants in the court below) submitted that the amendment involving the facts was not within the knowledge of the defendants and came to their knowledge only during course of examination of D.W.3. It is accordingly claimed that there was no illegality in bringing such amendment and further it is also alleged that the trial court not only decided the matter without application of appropriate mind but also rejected the application on the ground of delay in filing such application again appears to be inappropriate, particularly looking to the availability of information to the defendants on the materials sought to be brought by way of amendment. Further since the amendment was aimed in ensuring effective adjudication and restricting multiplicity of litigations for the interest of the parties, the application ought to have been allowed. It is on the above premises, Sri Pati, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order being erroneous and illegal should be interfered with and set aside.