JUDGMENT
B.P. Das, J.
1. This application is directed against an order dated 21.1.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore allowing the application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code (for short the “C.P.C.”) filed by the present opposite party to amend the memorandum of appeal. As it appears from the application so filed, the applicant, i.e., the present opposite party wanted to implead Biswajit Panda, aged about 5 years, the minor son of present petitioner as a respondent. The facts narrated in this application tend to reveal that the present opposite party is the plaintiff and filed the suit along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. praying for an ad interim order of injunction against the present opposite party.
2. Upon hearing the parties, the trial court refused to grant injunction against which an appeal was filed before the District
Judge, Balasore. During the pendency of the said appeal an application was filed by the appellant seeking an amendment of the appeal memo for impleading the name of one Biswajit Panda as one of the respondents. According to the appellant-petitioner, it is Biswajit Panda, who is the minor son of the Present petitioner and in whose name the property in dispute stands recorded. Accordingly, the District Judge, Balasore allowed the said application on the finding that the amendment can be made at any stage of the proceeding of the suif including appeal and thus allowed the aforesaid amendment.
3. It is worthwhile to mention that the said Biswajit Panda is not a party to the suit nor he is a party in the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. filed before the trial Court against the order of which the appeal was filed before the District Judge, Balasore, It is not disputed that the appellate Court can allow the amendment on the pleadings of the parties in course of hearing of the appeal. But, this is a case where the appeal memo was allowed to be amended.
4. For the better appreciation, the provisions of Rule 17 of Order 6, C.P.C. are reproduced below :
“Rule 17. Amendment of Pleadings : The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.”
5. Now the question arises what is a pleading ?
Rule 1 of Order 6 defines pleading as “Pleading shall mean plaint or written statement.”
The above being the meaning of “pleading” there was no occasion on the part of the learned District Judge to allow an application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. to amend the appeal memo, which cannot be said to be “Pleading”. The fundamental rule has been lost sight of by the learned District Judge, who should have gone through the provisions before venturing to pass a judicial order on the subject. In this background, the order passed by the District Judge, Balasore is illegal and contrary to the provisions of C.P.C., which is accordingly set aside.
The Civil Revision is disposed of accordingly.