M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order in IA No. 253 of 2016 in OP No. 1503 of 2010 dated 21.8.2017 passed by the Judge, Family Court at Hyderabad, dismissing an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., declining to grant leave to amend the petition. The petitioner filed OP No. 1503 of 2010 under Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of marriage for granting decree of divorce on various grounds in the year 2010 and during pendency of OP No. 1503 of 2010, filed IA No. 253 of 2016 seeking leave of the Court to amend the original petition, based on the alleged subsequent events that took place during pendency of the petition. The petitioner has filed a criminal complaint for criminal intimidation, trespass, etc. and filed report on 11.11.2010. Further, on other subsequent dates, various incidents took place. But, the incidents referred in the petition needs no further elaboration in the present order. But, the basis for the claim is subsequent events that occurred during pendency of the original petition for grant of divorce. It is contended that there are certain typographical errors and omissions relating to the property and they are required to be rectified, therefore, sought permission to amend the original petition filed for grounds of divorce.

2. The respondent did not file counter despite granting several adjournments, even after imposing costs and therefore, the trial Court heard both the Counsel and passed the order under challenge, holding that the proposed amendments being subsequent to filing of IA No. 253 of 2016, cannot be permitted and those amendments do not, in any way, help the Court to decide the application in OP No. 1503 of 2010 for divorce and dismissed the petition.

3. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Court below in IA No. 253 of 2016, the present revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, raising various contentions, mainly on the ground that the trial Court discussed the merits of the proposed amendment based on subsequent events, while admitting that it is a subsequent event. But, deciding merits of the proposed amendment while dealing with an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., is impermissible and when subsequent events take place, those events have direct bearing on the main petition. But, the trial Court did not take into consideration various aspects with regard to direct bearing on the issue involved in the main petition based on subsequent events, committed an error and prayed to set-aside the order passed by the trial Court, granting leave to amend the petition as prayed for in the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court and this Court in Rameshkumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports Private Limited and others, 2012 (4) ALD 67 (SC) : 2012 (4) ALT 1 (SC); Raghu Tilak D. Jhon v. S. Rayappan and others, 2001 (2) ALD 31 (SC) : (2001) 2 SCC 472; South Konkan Distilleries v. Prabhakar Gajanan Naik, 2009 (1) ALD 1 (SC) : (2008) 14 SCC 632; Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and others, 2009 (8) SCJ 401; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Special Court under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing Act, 2012 (5) ALD 484 (DB); State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gayatri Projects, 2004 (3) ALD (NOC) 174; B.P.P. Venkataswamy v. B. Ramakrishnudu, 2013 (2) ALD 96 and Om Prakash Guptha v. Brijesh Kumar, AIR 2002 SC 665.

5. In all the judgments cited above, the parties are at liberty to raise plea based on subsequent events during pendency of the suit and petitions and principles applicable to petition filed under Order VI Rule 7 C.P.C, those judgments will be discussed at appropriate stage in the order.

6. Learned Counsel for the respondent Sri K. Sai Babu contended that amendment cannot be allowed, since it was filed, long after filing OP No. 1503 of 2010 and several applications were filed d