1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2858 OF 2008 (Ku. Swati Baksharam Wadhwani vs. Yashpalsingh Chandansingh Thakur) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. OCTOBER 17, 2008. Heard Ms. Geeta Bablani with Shri Dastane, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sambre, learned counsel for the respondent. The grievance made is, after more than one year of filing of Hindu Marriage Petition, the respondent is trying to fill in lacunae by placing certain material on record. It is further argued that this is also done after affidavit of examination-in- chief was filed. The other contention is that the identical application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC was withdrawn unconditionally on 14.1.2008. It is urged that since beginning the petitioner – wife has pleaded that there was never any marriage and the proceedings were filed only to harass her and this conduct, therefore, needs to be looked into in this background and the application for amendment needs to be rejected. The learned counsel places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case 2 of Poro Kusta Nevekar vs. Calu Bhisso Velip & Ors., reported at 2006 (4) AIR Bom. R. 552 and Sarguja Transport Service vs. S.T.A.T. , reported at (1987) 1 SCC 5. The learned counsel also wants to rely upon certain other judgments to show that subsequent application in these circumstances is held to be barred. Shri Sambre, learned counsel, on the other hand, contends that earlier application was found to be deficient and, therefore, it was not pressed but on the very same day simultaneously another application was pressed into service. He further states that by amendment, only facts are sought to be elaborated and as such there is no prejudice to present petitioner – wife, as the nature of controversy does not undergo any change. I find that though nature of controversy does not undergo any change, the facts within the knowledge of the respondent, which could have been pleaded while filing petition itself were not pleaded and are allowed to be amended. But then Court below in its discretion has allowed the amendment. Considering the nature of controversy, I am not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction. The Court below can, however, consider the question of harassment of present petitioner while 3 deciding the suit finally. The judgments on which learned counsel for the petitioner wants to place reliance are not relevant because in present facts, as the application was withdrawn on 14.1.2008 and simultaneously identical application which was pressed into service, came to be filed. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.