IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1164 of 2007 SMT.VINITA KUMARI Versus ASHOK KUMAR ----------- 2 27.8.2008 Heard Counsel for the parties. In the opinion of this Court, the objection of the petitioner towards amendment in the application for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not be applicable, is to be noted by this Court for its being rejected in view of the law settled by the Apex Court in the case of K. Kannan Vs. K. Jaya Laxmi reported in 2004 (13) SCC 41. As a matter of fact, apart from the aforementioned judgment of the Apex Court, even the statute, Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure also clearly lays down the applicability of Civil Procedure Code in all the proceedings except a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, taking into consideration either the statutory provision or the law settled by the Apex Court, this Court would not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The grievance of the petitioner that a large number of amendments have been made, will again be of no avail because in that event, she will have a right to 2 make equqally large number of corresponding replies to the aforementioned amendments made in the plaint. It is well settled that when an amendment in the plaint is allowed, the other party gets definitely a chance to come out by way of additional written statement and in that view of the matter, it will always be open for the petitioner to take an additional plea as with regard to the amendments made by the husband, applicant. With the aforementioned observations, this civil revision application is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)