AF^ IN THE HIGH COURTLQF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (Q No. 1189 of 2008 Petitioner Usha Tripathi, W/o Chakradhar Tripathi, Non- aged about 34 Years, at present R/o Near applicant Water Tank, Namnakala, Ambikapur, P.8. Gandhinagar, Tah.- Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) Versus Respondent Chakradhar Tripathi, S/o Shri Rajkumar Applicant Tripathi, aged about 34 years, R/o Kanya Parisar Marg, Gangapur, Ambikapur, P.S.- Gandhinagar, Tah-Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Subhash Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V. K. Pandey, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER (Passed on this 25th day of September, 2008) The petitioner has filed this petition, impugning the order dated 28.1.2008 (Annexure P/7), passed by the Family Court, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Civil Suit No. 36-A/2007 (Chakradhar Tripathi Vs. Usha Tripathi), whereby the application of the petitioner dated 16.1.2008 for grant of time to file written statement was rejected. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the respondent are wife and husband, respectively. Their marriage was solemnized on 22.5.1998 at Patthalgaon, District Jashpur and within the wedlock, one son was born on 15.3.1999. On 24.7.2007 the respondent/husband filed an application under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "The Act, 1955") for ^^- "^. t^.^i&.. ^ g F 1 TasEt i ^. ^. ^y ,^' grant of a decree of divorce against the petitioner/wife, in the Family Court, Ambikapur. The application was registered as Civil Suit No. 36-A/2007. The notice was issued to the petitioner and the case was fbced for 18.9.2007 for conciliation. The petitioner appeared on 18.9.2007. In the conciliation proceeding, the petitioner had shown her desire to live with her husband/respondent. On 18.9.2007 the petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of The Act, 1955 and the case was fbced for 21.9.2007. Thereafter the case was fbced on various dates. On 16.1.2008 the petitioner filed an application for grant of time to file written statement. On 25.1.2008 the petitioner filed an application for grant of permission to engage a counsel, which was allowed and the case was fbced for 28.1.2008 for order on the application of the petitioner for grant of time to file written statement. By the impugned order dated 28.1.2008 the application of the petitioner for grant of tiine to file written statement was rejected by the trial Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. Shri Subhash Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on 18.9.2007 the case was fbced only for conciliation proceeding between the parties and there was no order for filing written statement. Though the conciliation proceeding failed on 18.9.2007 but the case was not fbced for filing written statement. Learned trial Court has erred in holding that the time for filing written statement was expired. The petitioner could engage a counsel on 25.1.2008, as such learned trial court ought to have granted time to the petitioner to file written statement. 3 "'"-^IB 4. Shri V. K. Pandey, leanred counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the petition and supported the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Having regard to the facts situation of the case and taking into consideration that the case on hand relates to a marital dispute, the ends of justice would be sub-ser^ed if the petitioner is granted liberty to file written statement in Civil Suit No. 36-A/2007, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. In the facts situation of this nature of case, the Court has a wide discretion. The cardinal principle is to subserve the ultimate cause of justice and to avoid multiplication of litigation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bollepanda P. Poonacha and another v. K.M.Madapa1 held as under:- "The Court, must however, exercise the discretionary jurisdiction in a judicious. manner. While considering fhat subser^ance of the justice is the ultimate goal, the statutory limitation shall not be oversteeped. Grant of relief will depend upon the factual background involved in each case. The Court, while undoubtedly would take into consideration the questions of serious injustice or irreparable loss, but nevertheless should bear in mind that a provision for amendment of pleadings are not available as a matter of right under all circumstances. One cause of action, cannot be allowed to be substituted by another. Ordinarily, effect of an admission made in earlier pleadings shall not be permitted to be taken away. See State of A.P. ' 2008 (5) SCJ 409 -^- ^ 8. and others v. M/s Pioneer Builders, A.P.(2007 (1) SCJ 106= (2006) 9 SCALE 520}, and Steel Authority of India Ltd. V. Union of India and others {2006(7) SCJ 726= 2006 (9) SCALE 597} and Himmat Singh and others v. I.C.I. India Ltd. And others {2008(2) SCALE 152}." For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 28.1.2008 (Annexure P/7) is set-aside to the extent of rejection of the application of the petitioner dated 16.1.2008 for grant of time to file written statement. The petitioner is at liberty to file written statement, if any, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Learned Court below is directed to consider the written statement, if any, filed by the petitioner, and decide the suit in accordance with law, on its own merits. No order asto costs. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge