The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that no new cause of action should be allowed, especially when the original claim would have been time-barred.

Harinath Tilhari, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 2.3.1999 in M.C. No. 3 of 1997 where by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Kolar, has been pleased to allow the application for amendment of the petition for divorce and to add the following as paragraph 2 (a);

The Respondent's attitude was not proper and the conduct, demeanour and the treatment of the Respondent to the Petitioner is nothing but cruelty and the Respondent made false defamatory, malicious, baseless allegations against the Petitioner alleging that the Petitioner is demanding dowry, as a matter of fact that the Respondent attempted to kill the Petitioner. In view of this attitude of the Respondent, the Petitioner has sustained mental pain, sufferings and agency, as such, it has become highly impossible to live together as husband and wife in the said surcharged atmosphere, on the ground of cruelty the Petitioner is entitle for divorce.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the revision Petitioner contended before this Court that the order allowing the amendment is illegal as the amendment sought has been an after thought and introduces new cause of action which was not in existence at the time of filing of the petition and thus resulting the change of cause of action. The learned Counsel further contended that the amendment being malafide and should not have been allowed.

3. The above contentions of the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner has hotly been contested by the learned Counsel for the Respondent.

4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that the petition for divorce has been filed by the husband on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. No doubt the evidence has been adduced and the claimant had pleaded illtreatment by his wife and alleged the physical, and mental torture and agony was being caused. In order to elaborate and amplify the plea his amendment was necessary and sought. Therefore, the Court below did not commit any error either in law or fact or of jurisdiction in allowing the amendment.

5. I have applied my mind to the above contentions advanced by the learned Counsels appearing for the parties.

6. It is well settled principle of law of amendment of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments are to be and shall be allowed to be made as may be necessary for the purpose of final determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The only rider is that no amendment which has the effect of making out a new case or new cause of action, should be allowed and especially when the original claim would have been time barred. I may make reference at this stage to the decision of the Privy Council in Charan Das and Others Vs. Amir Khan and Others, AIR 1921 PC 50 and the decision of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pirgonda Hongonda Patil Vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Others, AIR 1957 SC 363. What is new case has also been considered in another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Gupta and Sons Vs. Damodar Valley Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 96 wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down as under;

The general rule, no doubt, is that a party is not allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new cause of action particularly when a suit on new case or cause of action is barred. Weldon Vs. Neale, 1887 (19) QBD 394. But it is also well recognised that where the amendment does not constitute the addition of a new cause action or raise a different case, but amounts to not more than a different or additional approach to the same facts, the amendment will be allowed even after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation see Charan Das vs. Amir Khan, 47 Ind App 255 (AIR 1921 PC 50) and Garikapatti Veeraya Vs. N. Subbiah Choudhury, AIR