STATE OF ORISSA Vs. OMKAR NAND PUROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil miscellaneous petition arises out of rejection of an application for amendment of the written statement by the trial Court at the stage of first appeal.

(2.) Assailing the impugned order, Sri Sahu, learned State Counsel taking this Court to the proposed amendment as well as the grounds therein attempted to satisfy this Court that the facts borne therein and sought to be brought as pleadings in the written statement by way of amendment, are all relevant for the purpose of effective adjudication of the suit and delay in filing such application should not stand as a bar in taking into consideration such aspect. It is alleged that the trial Court having failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter has arrived at an illegal and erroneous impugned order, which unless be interfered with and set aside, it may result in a bad principle of law.

(3.) Referring to decisions as reported in (1) in the case of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das (D) by L.Rs., 2008 AIR(SC) 2139 (2) in the case of P. Kunjukrishna Pillai & Anr. V. D. Sreekantan Naik & Ors., 2008 2 OrissaLR 511 (SC)- and (3) in the case of Smt. Soudamini Chhotaray v. Surya Narayan Khuntia & others, 2010 2 OrissaLR 381 Sri Sahu, learned State Counsel submitted that even after amendment of the provision at Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C the pleadings in the plaint or written statement can be amended following the decisions referred to hereinabove and it is under the circumstance, Sri Sahu, the learned State Counsel submitted that unless the impugned order is interfered with and set aside and the application under Order 6 Rule 17 is allowed, there may not be effective adjudication of the lis involved.