IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1749 OF 2011 Between : Perabathula Lovababu ... PETITIONER A N D Chintapalli Sri Sai Naga Jyothirmayi … RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1749 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 11.04.2011, in I.A.No.265 of 2011 in O.P.No.5 of 2010 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) seeking to amend the pleadings so as to seek the relief of declaration of marriage as null and void, was allowed. 2. The respondent herein filed O.P.No.5 of 2010 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to declare the marriage between her and the petitioner herein as nullity. The respondent was examined as P.W.1 and her father was examined as P.W.2. At that time, the above Interlocutory Application was filed. The said petition was allowed on the ground that to avoid multiplicity of litigation and also that since the burden is on the respondent to prove that she was subjected to cruelty. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in T.Veera Venkata Rao V. Tikkana Venkata Ramana and others[1], wherein it is held thus: “It is not disputed that Article 65 of the Limitation Act prescribes 12 years period of limitation for instituting the suit by a vested remainder for declaration. The first defendant is still alive and therefore, the petitioner-plaintiff acquires the rights, if any, over the suit schedule property only on the death of the first defendant. The Apex Court in Sampath Kumar V. Ayyakannu and another (1) (2002) 7 SCC 559 while setting aside the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the amendment as confirmed by the Madras High Court while dismissing the revision; allowed the similar amendment sought for almost 11 years after the date of institution of the suit holding that the plaintiff is not debarred from instituting a new suit seeking relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession on the same basic facts as are pleaded in the plaint seeking relief of issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction and which is pending. In yet another decision in Pankaja and another V. Yellappa (died) by L.Rs. and others (2) (2004) 6 SCC 415, the Apex Court holding that there is no bar for amendment of the plaint initially filed for permanent injunction to that of a declaration of the plaint schedule property, set aside the order of the trial Court rejecting the application seeking for amendment on the ground that application is filed at belated stage as confirmed by the High Court, and permitted the amendment holding that the question whether or not the suit is barred by limitation for seeking the relief of declaration can be gone into in the main suit.” No doubt, from the above decision it is clear that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the amendment can be allowed. That is a case where initially the suit was filed for permanent injunction and thereafter amendment petition was filed for the relief of declaration of vested remainder rights. In those circumstances, it was held that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings the petition can be allowed. But, in this case, the cause of action, relief that may be granted and the pleadings, are entirely different. Therefore, in such circumstances, the above decision has no application to the facts of the present case. 4. The original petition was filed seeking a declaration that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent is null and void. The prayer sought for is dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. The present amendment sought for raises a new ground, totally inconsistent with an earlier one. It introduces a new cause of action. 5. Proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC as inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 restricts and curtails power of the Court to allow amendment in pleadings by enacting that no application for amendment should be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 11.04.2011 in I.A.No.265 of 2011 in O.P.No.5 of 2010 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad and leaving open the remedies available to the respondent under law. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU. J AUGUST 25, 2011. YVL [1] 2010 (2) ALT 634