THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.326, 327 and 328 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: Since all these Revisions arise out of the same proceedings, they are taken up together for disposal. Civil Revision Petition Nos.326, 327 and 328 of 2007 are directed against the orders, dated 18.03.2006, 18.09.2006 and 07.12.2006, passed by Senior Civil Judge, Rajampet, Kadapa District, wherein and whereby the applications in I.A.Nos.414 of 2005, 337 of 2006 and 923 of 2006 in M.O.P.No.10 of 2004, which were filed seeking to amend the pleadings in the said M.O.P, to add the proposed respondent as second respondent in the said M.O.P., and to receive certain documents, respectively, were dismissed. The petitioner in these Revisions is the husband of the respondent-wife. Before the Court below, he has filed the said M.O.P., purportedly under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking divorce on the ground of desertion. Now, subsequent to the commencement of the trial, all the said three applications have been filed – one seeking for amendment of the pleadings in the M,O.P., another to implead a third party as second respondent and the third one for receiving certain documents. The main ground urged in support of these applications is that the petitioner wants to introduce the plea of illicit intimacy of his wife-respondent with one Sowmithri and therefore, it necessitated him to file all these applications. The Court below dismissed all these applications on the ground that they are filed at a belated stage and no proper foundation has been laid by the petitioner for considering the same. Having heard learned counsel on either side and on a perusal of the entire material on record, it is seen that necessarily for enabling the petitioner to take any such further plea, which virtually is a substantial one, the same calls for laying a proper foundation by the petitioner. By the proposed amendment, the petitioner sought to add the following para:- “It is submitted that the respondent herein also developed illicit intimacy with one Sowmithri and she used to neglect the petitioner and the children even the petitioner is entitled for divorce on the ground of adultery.” Even on a bare reading of the above para, which virtually, is an addition to the substantial pleading, it cannot be said that there is any proper foundation laid by the petitioner to support the same. The petitioner cannot come to the Court by taking a plea of sweeping one sentence, which itself does not amount to laying proper foundation. Shorn of the reasons given by the Court below for rejecting these application, this Court is also satisfied that the petitioner has not laid the proper basis for entitling him to seek any amendment nor the amendment as sought for by him contains any strong proper foundation. Consequently, the relief sought for by him for impleading a third party and also to receive certain documents, cannot be granted. In view of the same, I do not find any error in the impugned orders passed by the Court below, warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. All the Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO 1st July 2010 dr