The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of due diligence in seeking amendments to pleadings, especially after the trial has commenced, to prevent delays in adjudication.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is also the petitioner in HMA No. 5862223/2016 titled Sheena v. Chirag Nath (hereinafter referred to as the `said petition'), pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Family Court'), challenging the order dated 02.07.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Order') passed by the learned Family Court in said petition, allowing the application filed by the respondent herein under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short `CPC') seeking amendment of his written statement, subject to payment of costs of Rs.25,000/-.

2. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the petitioner had filed the petition under Section 12(1)(A) and Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent on 07.08.2014. The respondent filed his written statement to the said petition on 06.09.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner tendered her examination-in-chief and was cross-examined from 15.01.2018 to 09.03.2018. The petitioner also produced her father as PW-2, whose evidence was recorded on 29.11.2019. It was only on 01.12.2020 that the respondent herein filed an application seeking an amendment to his written statement, thereby now seeking to raise a fresh allegation that the petitioner herein was having an extra-marital affair with a gentleman mentioned in the application even prior to their marital discord taking place, that is, in 2014. The respondent further alleged that he became aware of the said affair only on 10.01.2020 when he, coincidently, met the said gentleman at Mumbai Airport.

3. Drawing reference to the averments made in the said application filed by the respondent herein under VI Rule 17 of the CPC, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the said assertions do not show any due diligence on the part of the respondent and, therefore, the amendment should not have been allowed by the learned Family Court.

4. He submits that in the present case, the evidence of the petitioner already stands concluded. Allowing the amendment at such a belated stage would, therefore, put the clock back and cause further delay in the adjudication of the said petition. He submits that the learned Family Court has not considered the issue of due diligence at all in its Impugned Order.

5. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pandit Malhari Mahale v. Monika Pandit Mahale & Ors., (2020) 11 SCC 549, he submits that in the absence of consideration of the issue of due diligence, the Impugned Order deserves to be set aside by this Court.

6. He further submits that the averments that have been made in the application are mala fide and only intended to delay the adjudication of the said petition.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that no case for interference with the Impugned Order, in the exercise of powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been made out by the petitioner herein. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Bhatia v. Subhash Chander Bhatia, (2018) 2 SCC 87, he submits that the Court in the exercise of its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal and it is not open for the Court to review or re-assess the evidence upon which the Family Court has passed the Impugned Order; the power of this Court is confined only to see whether a subordinate Court or Tribunal has proceeded within the parameters of its jurisdiction. He submits that in the present case, the learned Family Court has acted well within its jurisdiction and, therefore, the Impugned Order does not deserve any interference of this Court.

8. On merits, he submits that the respondent, in his application, has clearly brought out the facts that led to t