C.R. No.2421 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.2421 of 2008 Date of Decision: 31.7.2008 Pankaj Sharma .....Petitioner Vs. Shweta Sharma ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.N. Gaur, Advocate for the respondent. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Challenge in this revision petition is to an order dated 31.03.2008, passed by the learned Additional district Judge, (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Ambala, dismissing the petitioner's application for amendment of the petition. The petitioner filed a petition, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for grant of divorce. During the pendency of the petition and before issues could be framed, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the petition so as to incorporate facts which had come into existence after the filing of the divorce petition. The learned trial Court, however, dismissed the application by holding that the amendment would prolong the litigation. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the trial Court accepted the fact that the amendment sought to be pleaded pertains to facts that have come into existence, after the filing of the divorce petition, the prayer for amendment should not have been rejected. It is further submitted that the ground for rejection, namely; that the amendment would prolong C.R. No.2421 of 2008 2 litigation and the petitioner may seek further amendments, with respect to every new fact that may come into existence, is irrelevant and discloses a failure to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law. It is, therefore, prayed that the revision petition be accepted and the order dated 31.3.2008 be set aside. Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the delay of three years in praying for amendment, even if for incorporating subsequent events, was sufficient to decline the prayer for amendment. In case such an amendment is allowed, the petitioner would seek repeated amendments and continue to incorporate new facts as and when they come into existence. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Admittedly, the amendment sought to be incorporated relates to facts that came into existence, during the pendency and after the filing of the divorce petition. The learned trial Court, accepted this fact but dismissed the prayer for amendment on entirely irrelevant grounds. An extract of the impugned order reads as follows :- “No doubt those facts are the subsequent events, but petitioner could bring a separate petition on those grounds or could withdraw present petition with permission to file a fresh one on account of those subsequent events or could think of them in his replication. Giving permission to petition to amend his petition after more than three years of its filing on the grounds which came into existence later on will in turn bring the petition back to the stage from where he has C.R. No.2421 of 2008 3 stated. There will be no end to it as one or the other fact takes place every day and petitioner will go on incorporating them after lapse of every few months.” Acceptance, by the trial Court, that the facts sought to be incorporated by amendment, are subsequent events should have led to an acceptance of the application for amendment. The reasons put forth by the trial Court, for rejecting the prayer for amendment, namely; allowing the amendment would enable the petitioner, to seek repeated amendments, with respect to any other subsequent events, is entirely irrelevant and incomprehensible. It is no part of a Court’s duty to speculate as to any future prayer for amendment that may or may not be put forth. All pleas, factual and legal, essential for a just and fair adjudication of a pending lis, must subject to any legal impediment, be allowed. The fact that subsequent events may come into existence, which may necessitate further amendments lies within the realm of speculation and Court do not pass orders based upon mere speculation. It is an established principle of law that subsequent events, necessary and essential for a just adjudication of a pending lis must be allowed to be pleaded by way of amendment. In view of what has been stated herein above, the revision petition is allowed, the order dated 31.03.2008 is set aside, and the prayer for amendment is allowed. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on the date already fixed for further proceedings. 31.7.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) sk/GS JUDGE