1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Civil Application (CAS) No. 946 of 2009 in SECOND APPEAL NO. 280 OF 1994 (Ramratan Pandurang Sunwani ...VERSUS... Smt. Maya Ramratan Sunwani) =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. H.Ahmed, Advocate for appellant/applicant. Mr. D.G.Paunikar, Advocate for respondent. C ORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATED : 29th MARCH, 2010. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. This civil application has been filed for amending the plaint. The present appellant had instituted a suit for divorce. The said suit came to be decided by the trial court on 21/1/1991 and appeal was preferred before the District Court and the said appeal came to be decided on 15/2/1994. The appellant now wants to raise a plea that he was being prosecuted in a criminal court for having committed an offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. His contention is that he is acquitted in the criminal case on 22/1/1993. According to the appellant, such institution of proceedings and acquittal would show that the said act of the respondent was an act of cruelty. The appellant wants to add this ground 2 as one of the grounds for seeking divorce. The learned counsel for the respondent opposes the application on the ground that such ground could have been raised even before the District Court when the first appeal was pending before the District Judge, in as much as the first appeal before District Court came to be decided in February, 1994, while the criminal case was decided in January, 1993. There is no doubt that such a plea could have been raised before the District Judge or when this appeal came to be filed. Be that as it may, there is some negligence on the part of the appellant, but the fact remains that the appellant was acquitted by the criminal court and he wants to bring this fact to the notice of the Court. It is for the court to decide what value should be attached to this fact when the appeal will be heard on the merits. In the circumstances, the amendment application is allowed. The amendment be carried out on payment of costs of Rs.1000/- to the respondent. In any case, the appeal is a matrimonial appeal and is of 1994. The said appeal be listed for final hearing on 07th April, 2010. JUDGE. Diwale