IMPORTANT POINTS
The trial has commenced immediately after filing of the affidavit in connection with the chief examination by the respondent-The provision to Order VI Rule 17 will start applying- So the findings entered by the Lower Court below that the trial has not commenced, even though the respondent has filed proof affidavit as Examination in Chief is not correct.

JUDGMENT :

ANNIE JOHN, J.

1. The petitioners herein are the respondents in I.A. No. 313/2018 in O.P. No. 314/2013 on the files of the Family Court, Chavara. The O.P. was originally filed by the respondent herein before the Family Court Kollam as O.P. No. 201/2011 and after the formation of the Family Court, Chavara and the same was transferred and renumbered as above. The prayer in the above O.P. was for return of 160 sovereigns of gold ornaments worth Rs. 24 lakhs and an amount of Rs. 9 lakhs allegedly due from the petitioners.

2. The case of the respondent in the O.P. was that the marriage between the 1st petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 27.02.1995 as per the rites and rituals prevalent among the Latin Catholic Community at St. Thomas Moore Latin Catholic Church, Palluruthy, Ernakulam. A male child was born in the wedlock on 23.11.1996. The relationship between the respondent and the 1st petitioner became strained and they had been living separately since 18.04.2006. Exhibit P1 is the copy of the O.P. No. 314/2013 filed by the respondent herein. The petitioners have filed a detailed counter affidavit denying on the facts as stated in Ext.P1. When the O.P was ripe for trial, the respondent has filed an application as I.A. No. 313/2018 to amend the O.P. incorporating additional averments and prayers. In the above amendment application, the respondent has prayed for carrying exhaustive amendments of the entire petition and enhanced the total claim to the tune of Rs. 60,53,150/- by adding the money recoverable from the 1st petitioner as Rs. 35,53,150/- as against the claim of Rs. 9 lakhs. True copy of the affidavit and petition for amendment dated 14.02.2018 is produced as Ext.P2.

3. The petitioners herein had objected to the above amendment pointing out the fact that the amendment sought for is intended only to protract the proceedings and thereby to harass the petitioners. Further the petition is highly belated and that if the amendment is permitted, it would alter the very nature of the O.P. Many of the claims as mentioned in the amendment application are barred by limitation and therefore it is not legally permissible to incorporate such claims by way of amendment. The true copy of the objection filed by the 1st petitioner dated 20.04.2018 is produced as Ext.P3.

4. But the Court below has allowed Ext.P2 vide order dated 04.06.2018 holding that the amendment sought for is only to incorporate certain other money claims which are omitted to be incorporated earlier. The true copy of the order passed by the Family Court, Chavara vide I.A. No. 313/2018 in O.P. No. 314/2013 dated 04.06.2018 is produced as Ext.P4.

5. Ext.P4 order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in O.P. (F.C.) No. 393/2018. After hearing both sides, this Court vide judgment dated 23.11.2018 has set aside Exhibit P4 order and directed the Court below to dispose of the above said I.A. afresh in accordance with the principles of law relating to amendment of pleadings. The true copy of the judgment passed by this Court in O.P. (F.C.) No. 393/2018 dated 23.11.2018 is produced as Exhibit P5.

6. After receipt of Ext.P5 judgment the Court below has heard the matter afresh and allowed the I.A. holding that in order to render justice to both parties amendment application has to be allowed and it was allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 3,000/-. The true copy of the order in above said I.A is produced as Exhibit P6.

7. It was submitted that Exhibit P6 order is highly unjust, illegal and arbitrary and it was passed by disregarding the observations made by this Court in Exhibit P5 judgment. The reason as stated by the Court below for allowing the application are totally unsustainable in law. The Court below ought to have found that the monetary claim in the O.P. was only for Rs. 9 lakhs which is now sought to be enhanced to Rs. 35 lakhs on the ground that those amounts were omitted to be incorporated earlier. The main ground has urged by the petitioners tha