ORDER
L. Mohapatra, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. In spite of service of notice to the opposite parties, they have not entered appearance.
3. This writ application is directed against the order dated 15.9.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nayagarh in C.S. No. 42 of 2002 rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint.
4. The petitioner has filed the suit for declaration that the registered gift deed dated 7.12.1998 and the registered sale deed dated 7.12.1998 purported to have been executed by late Loknath Mohapatra in favour of opposite party Nos. 1 and 5 are void and also for declaration that, the subsequent registered sale deed dated 22.1.2001 executed by opposite party No. 5 In favour of opposite party No. 1 and the registered sale deed dated 3.4.2002 executed by opposite party No. 1 in favour of opposite parties 2 to 4 are void and also for permanent injunction.
5. In the said suit, an application under Order VI, Rule XVII of C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of the plaint. The said petition having been rejected in the impugned order, this writ application has been filed.
6. The proposed amendment is for insertion of certain words in paragraph-5 of the plaint as well as deletion of plot number and substitution of the correct plot number. An objection was filed stating that if the amendment is allowed, it will change the nature and character of the suit. The learned Civil Judge rejected the petition on the ground that if the words are allowed to be inserted in paragraph-5 of the plaint and there is change of plot number, it may indirectly change the nature and character of the suit. From the plaint, it appears that vacant land mentioned in paragraph-5 of the plaint is to be explained in the proposed amendment by saying that the same was being used as bari. The other amendment sought for is that instead of plot No. 91 as mentioned in the schedule, should be 61. There being no dispute that there is reference to a vacant piece of land in paragraph-5 of the plaint and in the proposed amendment, it is stated to have been used as bari such amendment does not change the nature and character of the suit. So far as suit plot is concerned, there appears to be a mistake in the plaint with regard to plot number. Even if such correction is allowed at this stage, no prejudice shall be caused to the defendant-opposite parties. I am, therefore of the view that if the amendment is allowed, it will not change the nature and character of the suit as no substantial change is made in the basic stand taken in the plaint. I accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow the prayer for amendment. The plaintiff-petitioner is directed to furnish a consolidated copy of the plaint within one month from today before the trial Court.
The writ application is accordingly disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application.