EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. SUSAMA MANGARAJ AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter involves rejecting an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. at the instance of the State- plaintiff.

(2.) Taking this Court to the proposed amendment and the observations of the trial court, Sri B.R.Behera, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that for filing of amendment application almost within one year of filing of the suit and for involvement of a vital issue and prayer involved therein within the time stipulation for doing so, it appears the trial court has failed in appreciating the issue involved and the relevancy with the amendment in deciding the suit at least keeping in view of an effective adjudication of the suit as well as avoiding multiplicity of litigations between the parties involving the same property.

(3.) Sri P.K.Rath, learned counsel for O.P.2 opposing the submission made by the learned Additional Standing Counsel and taking this Court to the rejection of earlier application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. at the instance of same party submitted that for the rejection of the earlier application having almost the same prayer, a subsequent application was per se not maintainable. Further taking this Court to the present amendment application involved herein, Sri Rath contended that for there being no explanation for bringing such amendment after one year, the petitioner failed in satisfying the court on the factum of due diligence. Sri Rath taking this Court to the observations of the trial court submitted that there has been due application of mind in passing the impugned order, which leaves no scope for interfering with the same. Sri Rath also relying on three decisions of the Hon'ble apex Court in Chander Kanta Bansal vrs. Rajinder Singh Anand, AIR 2008 SC 2234, RAjkumar Gurawara (Dead) Thr.L.Rs. vrs. M/s.S.K.Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & another, AIR 2008 SC 2303 and Vidyabai and others vrs. Padmalatha & another, AIR 2009 SC 1433 contended that for the ratio involved therein, all the decisions support the case of the O.P.2. Sri Rath thus contended that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order.