CRP 303/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE TNK SINGH Heard Mr.PK Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and also Mr.PK Bh agawati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-wife. This revision petition is directed against the order of the lear ned District Judge, Nalbari T.S.(D) No.12 of 2006 allowing the application for a mendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC filed by the respondent/defendant for amendment of the written statement. Mr.Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the ap plication for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was not filed by the responden t/defendant, in the proper form. Copy of the application for amendment is availa ble at Annexure-6 to the revision petition. This court is not happy to see the way the application for amend ment is drafted by the concerned lawyer. The application for amendment is not pr operly drafted. However, for the ends of justice, the application for amendment cannot be rejected on technical flaw inasmuch as in the event of rejecting the a pplication for amendment on technical flaw, the party concerned i.e, (petitioner of the amendment application) will not have the chance to put up his/her case. In other words, in the event of rejecting the application for amendment, justice will be denied to the party concerned inasmuch as he/she will be denied to put his real case. Mr.PK Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband is not di sputing the law laid down by the Apex Court regarding amendment of pleadings and he contended that in the present revision that even if the application for amen dment could be filed at any stage of the proceedings, there should be at least s ome reason for delay in filing the application for amendment. In the present cas e, the suit i.e. T.S(D) Case No.12 of 2006 was filed in the year 2006 and after receiving the notice of the said case respondent/defendant had already filed the ir written statement. In the written statement vide para 11, the respondent/defe ndant had already pleaded that the respondent/defendant too like divorce with al imony of Rs.5,00,000/- in cash. By the application for amendment, respondent/def endant want to delete the said portion mentioned in para 11 of the written state ment. Therefore, it is submission of Mr.Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent/defendant had already admitted the case of the petitioner/h usband. In support of his contention, Mr.Deka, relied on the various dec isions of the Apex Court wherein the Apex Court held that the admission made by the defendant in the written statement cannot be amended. In the present case, t his court is afraid that the said portion of the fact mentioned in para 11 of th e written statement which is to be deleted by filing amendment application is no t the admission by the respondent/defendant in true sense of the terms inasmuch as the said fact mentioned in para 11 of the written statement is only desire of the respondent/defendant. Copy of the written statement is also available at Annexure-2 to the revision petition. On perusal of the written statement, it is clear that th e respondent/defendant is categorically denying the allegation and assertion mad e by the petitioner/husband in the plaint save and except that portion in para 1 1 to the written statement wherein respondent/defendant too like divorce with al imony of Rs.5 lakhs. As stated above, the said fact mentioned above in para 11 of the written statement is only desire of the respondent/defendant. Over and above, t he stage of the trial of T.S.(D) Case N.12 of 2006 is only at the stage of frami ng issues and examination of PWs and DWs have not yet started. It is also fairly well settled that mere allowing the amendment of the plaint or written statement in the manner mentioned in the proposed amend ment will not mean that whatever mentioned in the proposed amendment had been ap proved. The fact mentioned in the proposed amendment is to be proved in the mann er prescribed by law. Taking into consideration of the submission of learned counsel f or the parties and also the stage of the trial of T.S(D) Case No.12 of 2006, thi s court is not interfering with the impugned judgment and order of the learned D istrict Judge, Nalbari dated 3.6.2010 passed in T.S.(D) Case No.12 of 2006. However, taking into consideration of the way respondent/defenda nt had filed the application for amendment of written statement and thereby caus ing considerable delay in disposal of the T.S (D) Case No.12 of 2006 this court is of considered view that some amount of cost should be awarded which should be paid by the respondent defendant/wife to the petitioner. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.500/- is awarded as cost, which shall be paid by the respondent/defendant to the petitioner within two weeks from today. With the above observation and direction the revision petition i s disposed of.