The Orissa High Court on 22nd October 2025 dismissed a petition filed by Smt. Janaki Jena and another seeking to amend their plaint in a long-running partition suit. The court, presided over by Justice B.P. Routray, affirmed the Balasore Senior Civil Judge’s order refusing to allow any late-stage changes to the pleadings.
The petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenged the trial court’s March 2025 order in Civil Suit No. 1750/1978 of 2021.
Background
The case revolved around a family dispute concerning ancestral and self-acquired properties divided into two lots. The petitioners, Janaki Jena and her co-plaintiff, had originally filed for partition of the property, asserting joint ownership.
However, at the argument stage, they moved a fresh petition to insert additional facts particularly to record that certain lands were held as Sikim tenancies under Sikim Khata Nos. 3 and 4. They also sought to correct the name of their common ancestor as Bali @ Banamali Jena.
The trial court refused the amendment, reasoning that the petitioners earlier attempt to modify the plaint had already been rejected in May 2024, and that there was no tangible evidence linking the disputed Lot No. 2 properties with the alleged Sikim tenancy.
Arguments Before the High Court
Counsel for the Petitioners, Ms. Prajna Sarita Mohanty, argued that the plaintiffs had discovered new material only recently and that the amendment was essential to properly represent their claim. She contended that since Lot No. 1 was admittedly joint family property, Lot No. 2 should also be treated as such, being part of the same ancestral lineage.
On the other side, Advocate Devi Prasad Mohapatra, representing the opposite party, strongly objected. He pointed out that the plaintiffs had themselves admitted earlier that Lot No. 2 properties were purchased by their father - not inherited.
"There is absolutely no material showing any connection between the Lot No. 2 properties and the alleged Sikim tenancy," Mr. Mohapatra argued.
Court's Observations
Justice Routray noted that the plaintiffs earlier application for amendment filed in 2024 had already been considered and rejected on merits, not merely on technical grounds.
"The plaintiffs submission that the earlier rejection was technical does not stand to reason," the judge remarked. He further pointed out that the earlier order had observed the lack of documentary evidence or cause of action to justify any amendment.
The High Court also examined whether the new request met the threshold for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in LIC of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2022) 16 SCC 1, the judge reiterated:
"All amendments are to be allowed if they are necessary for determining the real question in controversy and do not prejudice the other side. However, where an amendment changes the nature of the suit or is made at a belated stage without due diligence, it must be rejected."
Justice Routray observed that the plaintiffs had failed to establish due diligence, as required under the law. He remarked that even at this stage, no document has been produced to show any connection between Lot No. 2 properties and Sikim Khata Nos. 3 and 4.
He added, "When the case is already posted for argument, permitting such amendment will open up an entirely new line of evidence -effectively restarting the case."
The Decision
After a detailed hearing, the High Court found no merit in the petitioners plea.
"It is incumbent upon the plaintiffs seeking amendment after the trial has commenced to show why it could not be done earlier despite due diligence. This burden has not been discharged," the court said.
Consequently, the High Court affirmed the lower court’s order dated 12th March 2025 and dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition (CMP No. 813 of 2025).
In conclusion, Justice Routray held:
"If such amendment were allowed at this stage, it would enable the plaintiffs to develop a new case and adduce further evidence. No merit is seen in favour of the plaintiffs from any angle to allow their prayer for amendment."
With that, the petition stood dismissed.
Case Title: Smt. Janaki Jena & Another vs Dinabandhu @ Biswambara Jena & Others
Case Number: CMP No. 813 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 22 October 2025
Advocates Appeared:
- For Petitioners: Ms. Prajna Sarita Mohanty, Advocate
- For Opposite Parties: Sri Devi Prasad Mohapatra, Advocate (Balasore)