Or. 6 Rule 17 CPC | Selective Amendments That Prejudice Opposite Party Must Be Denied: Orissa High Court

“When One Party Seeks to Alter the Map Midway, The Other Cannot Be Forced Into Procedural Complexity” – In a strongly reasoned decision Orissa High Court quashed a trial court’s order that allowed amendment of a decades-old civil suit's land schedule at the stage of final arguments. Justice B.P. Routray held that the amendment—sought selectively by the plaintiffs to introduce consolidation plot numbers in place of the originally pleaded major settlement plots—was not only unjustified and unnecessary, but also prejudicial to the rights of the defendants.

“The amendment sought is one-sided, belated, and introduces procedural complications without aiding adjudication,” the Court observed, while emphasizing that pleadings cannot be manipulated in a manner that forces the opposing party into a corner during final arguments.

Suit Filed in 1995, Plaintiffs Seek Amendment in 2025

The underlying litigation stemmed from T.S. No. 167 of 1995, a title suit filed by Basanta Kumari Mohanty and others (Plaintiffs) against Kuni Sahani and others (Defendants), concerning possession and injunction over a stretch of land situated between Plot Nos. 1602 and 1603, with each party claiming possession over the disputed portion.

During the pendency of the suit—remarkably prolonged due to remand from appellate court—the plaintiffs moved an application in 2025, seeking to amend the suit schedule to include the consolidation RoR plot number corresponding to Plot No. 1602, their own land. However, they did not propose any corresponding update for the defendant’s land, Plot No. 1603.

The Gram Nyayalaya, Brahmagiri, by order dated 09.10.2025, allowed the amendment application, prompting the defendants to challenge it before the High Court.

“Amendment Must Be Necessary, Bona Fide, and Fair” – Court Recalls Revajeetu Principles

Citing the well-established principles governing amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Chakreshwari Construction v. Manohar Lal, reiterating that:

“The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money… and must not fundamentally change the nature of the case.”

The Court found that the plaintiffs’ amendment plea failed on all fronts. Justice Routray wrote:
“The insertion of corresponding consolidation plot number and khata number in respect of one of the plots, i.e. MS Plot No. 1602, would definitely prejudice the adverse party… If the amendment is allowed, the defendants are bound to bring corresponding amendment for their plot… This will further complicate the process of adjudication of the suit.” [Para 8]

High Court: No Explanation for 24-Year Delay, Amendment Is “Unnecessary”

The Court took serious note of the plaintiffs’ failure to justify the timing of the amendment. The suit was filed in 1995, while the consolidation RoR came into effect in 2001. However, no amendment was sought until 2025, at the brink of final arguments. The Court noted:

“The plaintiffs have not stated anything in their petition for amendment… with regard to the reason of inserting the consolidation plots at this stage except mentioning that the consolidation RoR was published in the year 2001-02.” [Para 5]

Finding no difficulty in adjudicating the dispute on the basis of major settlement RoR—as originally pleaded—the Court concluded that the selective update sought by the plaintiffs was unwarranted and strategically motivated.

“Bringing one plot with reference to the consolidation RoR in the schedule of suit leaving the other plot as it is in the MS RoR would certainly cause prejudice… and is termed as unnecessary.” [Para 9]

Suit Can Be Decided on Original Records, No Justification for Introducing New Land Maps at Final Stage

The High Court was categorical in holding that the existing pleadings and records—based on the major settlement map—were sufficient for determining the title and possession dispute. It also rejected the idea that the amendment would assist in effective adjudication.

“There would not be any difficulty in adjudicating the suit as per major settlement RoR without referring to the consolidation RoR,” the Court said. [Para 9]

It further warned against setting a precedent where parties selectively cherry-pick documents mid-trial:

“Selective introduction of land record changes without reciprocal correction for the opposing party is neither fair nor procedurally sound.”

Impugned Order Set Aside, Amendment Application Rejected

Allowing the civil miscellaneous petition filed by the defendants, the High Court concluded:

“To avoid further complication and compulsion on the part of the Defendants at the stage of argument of the suit, the prayer for amendment made by the Plaintiffs is rejected by setting aside the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 of learned trial court.” [Para 9]

The judgment sends a clear message that delayed, selective, and prejudicial amendments—especially at advanced stages—will not be permitted, and that procedural fairness must be balanced between both parties, particularly in suits with long pendency.

Date of Decision: 23rd December 2025