High Court · 2025

Mr. Mohit Kum ar Kashyap, Advocat e t he appellant .

2. Respondent has filed a Divorce Pet it ion against t he appellant , which is pending before Fam ily Court , Kashipur, Dist rict Udham Singh Nagar and num bered as Suit No. 390 of 2019. Respondent m oved an applicat ion, seeking leave t o am end his plaint , which has been allowed by learned Fam ily Court , vide order dat ed

16.11.2024. Thus, feeling aggrieved, t his appeal has been filed by t he wife, challenging t he said order.

3. Learned counsel for t he appellant subm it s t hat since issues were fram ed, t he applicat ion seeking leave t o am end could not have been allowed in view of proviso t o Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which is ext ract ed below: - “ 1 7 . A m e n d m e n t o f p l e a d i n g s .—The Court m ay at any st age of t he proceedings allow eit her part y t o alt er or am end his pleadings in such m anner and on such t erm s as m ay be j ust , and all such am endm ent s shall be m ade as m ay be necessary for t he purpose of det erm ining t he real quest ions in cont roversy bet ween t he part ies: Provided t hat no applicat ion for am endm ent shall be allowed aft er t he t rial has com m enced, unless t he Court com es t o t he conclusion t hat in spit e of due diligence, t he part y could not have raised t he m at t er before t he com m encem ent of t rial.”

4. Hon’ble Suprem e Court in Dinesh Goyal v. Sum an Agarwal ( Bindal) , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2615 has held as under: - “ 11. At t his j unct ure, before proceeding t o t he m erit s of t he case, let us consider t he law relat ing t o t he am endm ent s of pleadings.

11.2 Over t he years, t hrough num erous j udicial precedent s cert ain fact ors have been out lined for t he applicat ion of Order VI Rule 17. Recent ly, I ndia v. Sanj eev Builders Pvt . Lt d., aft er considering num erous precedent s in regard t o t he am endm ent of pleadings, culled out I nsurance Corporat ion t his Court in Life cert ain principles: — ( i) All am endm ent s are t o be allowed which are necessary for det erm ining t he real quest ion in cont roversy provided it does not cause inj ust ice or prej udice t o t he ot her side. This is m andat ory, as is apparent from t he use of t he word “ shall” , in t he lat t er part of Order VI Rule 17 of t he CPC. ( ii) I n t he following scenario such applicat ions should be ordinarily allowed if t he am endm ent is for effect ive and proper adj udicat ion of t he cont roversy bet ween t o avoid m ult iplicit y of t he part ies proceedings, provided it does not result in inj ust ice t o t he ot her side. ( iii) Am endm ent s, while generally should be allowed, t he sam e should be disallowed if - ( a) By t he am endm ent , t he part ies seeking am endm ent does not seek t o wit hdraw any clear adm ission m ade by t he part y which confers a right on t he ot her side. ( b) The am endm ent does not raise a t im e- barred claim , result ing in t he divest ing of t he ot her side of a valuable accrued right ( in cert ain sit uat ions) ( c) The am endm ent com plet ely changes t he nat ure of t he suit ; ( d) The prayer for am endm ent is m alafide, ( e) By t he am endm ent , t he ot her side should not lose a valid defence. ( iv) Som e general principles t o be kept in m ind are - ( I ) The court should avoid a hyper- t echnical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when t he opposit e part y can be com pensat ed by cost s. ( I I ) Am endm ent m ay be j ust ifiably allowed where it is int ended t o rect ify t he absence of m at erial part iculars in t he plaint or int roduce an addit ional or a new approach. ( I I I ) The am endm ent should not change t he cause of act ion, so as t o set up an ent irely new case, foreign t o t he case set up in t he plaint .”

5. Since, learned Fam ily Court found t he am endm ent t o be clarificat ory and necessary for det erm ining t he real quest ion in cont roversy and allowed t he applicat ion subj ect t o paym ent of cost of Rs. 2000/ - , and nat ure of t he suit is also not going t o change, by am ending t he plaint , t herefore, t his Court does not find any reason t o int erfere wit h t he reasoned order passed by learned Fam ily Court .

6. Thus, t he Appeal fails and is dism issed. ( A sh i sh N a i t h a n i , .J.) ( Ma n o j Ku m a r Ti w a r i , .J.) Navin

21.03.2025