CR No. 8087 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 8087 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 13.12.2010 Rohit Prabhakar ......petitioner vs. Smt. Meenakshi Sharda ......respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. R.N. Maurya, Advocate for the petitioner HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Challenge in the present revision petition is to an order passed by learned trial Court on 9.11.2010 whereby the respondent-wife was permitted to amend her written statement so as to incorporate the specific instances of cruelty in her written statement. The petitioner has sought decree for dissolution of marriage, inter alia, for the reasons that respondent has treated the petitioner with cruelty. Initially, the respondent filed written statement but without elaborating the instances of the alleged cruelty at the instance of the petitioner. Respondent sought amendment of the written statement on 2.8.2010 when the plaintiff has examined five witnesses and tendered his own affidavit and the affidavit of his father in evidence. Learned trial Court allowed the respondent to amend the written statement after returning a finding that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner if the amendment sought for is allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that after the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure and insertion of proviso CR No. 8087 of 2010 -2- in Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the amendment could be allowed only for the reason that certain facts could not be pleaded in spite of due diligence. It is contended that from the averments made in the application to seek amendment, the amendment in the written statement is necessitated on account of the fact that the previous counsel for the respondent has not given the complete facts. Thus, the pre condition of non disclosure of facts in spite of due diligence has not been satisfied. Such amendment has been allowed by learned trial Court ignoring the binding precedent of a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported as (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 409 Vidyabai and ors vs. Padmalatha and another and a judgment of this Court reported as 2009 (1)PLR 567 Ajit Singh vs. Jaswinder Kaur. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The petitioner has sought dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. By virtue of amendment, respondent wants to elaborate the pleas already taken in the written statement and to explain the instances when the petitioner and his family members treated the respondent with cruelty. As per the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, an application for amendment can be allowed, if the facts could not be pleaded in spite of due diligence. In the present case, the facts were in the knowledge of the respondent but the facts were to be incorporated in the written statement on the basis of information received from respondent by counsel. Whether the instances of cruelty mentioned by the respondent are true or not, is the subject matter of dispute to be proved CR No. 8087 of 2010 -3- on evidence by the parties. Respondent is though working as clerk in a government office but it cannot be said that she is well conversant with legal procedure. It is the counsel who has to advise and to incorporate the details in the written statement. In view of the said fact, I do not find that the amendment should not have been allowed by learned trial Court. By virtue of the amendment, an opportunity has been given to the parties to prove the allegations in respect of cruelty. Thus, I do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by learned trial Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 13.12.2010 preeti