JUDGMENT :

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner filed O.P. No. 267 of 2016 before the Family Court, Pathanamthitta seeking a decree of return of gold ornaments, household articles and realisation of money. She has filed I.A. No. 2 of 2022 seeking leave to amend the original petition. The Family Court did not grant leave. Ext.P5 is the order dismissing I.A. No. 2 of 2022. Feeling aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The respondents entered appearance pursuant to notice. An interim order directing the Family Court to keep the proceedings in O.P. No. 267 of 2016 in abeyance for a period of three weeks was granted on 05.12.2022. That order was subsequently extended for a period of two months.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. O.P .No. 267 of 2016 was filed with the following prayers:

“(A) To direct the respondent to return 55 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner or its market value as Rs.12,65,000/-as on the date of filing this petition with interest 12% till realisation.

(B) To direct the respondent to pay the patrimony amount of Rs.8,30,000/-to the petitioner with 12% interest till realisation.

(C) To direct the respondent to hand over one washing machine and a sofa settee or its market value of Rs.50,000/-to the petitioner.”

5. I.A. No. 2 of 2022 was filed seeking to amend pleadings as well as the prayer column. By way of amendment, reliefs A and B in the original petition are sought to be corrected besides adding supporting pleadings.

6. The Family Court rejected the permission to amend the petition stating that the petitioner was aware of the said facts at the time of filing of the Original Petition and inclusion of such additional facts and reliefs will be prejudicial to the respondent.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petition for amendment was filed well before commencement of the trial and as the proposed amendment would not cause any substantial change to the nature of the proceedings or the reliefs claimed, the Family Court ought to have allowed the petition. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that correction of the reliefs would change the character of the proceedings inasmuch as more claim will get included. Moreover, the additional relief is with respect to monetary claim and therefore the question of bar by the law of limitation arises. In such circumstances, it is contended that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity.

8. It is true that when a claim for realisation of additional amount is added, it may amount to addition of a new relief. However, in the nature of the proceedings, which is one for return of gold ornaments and money, addition of such a claim would not change the nature or character of the proceedings. Such an addition may have the bearing on the bona fides of the petitioner, which is a matter to be considered at the time of disposal of the O.P.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance in L.I.C. of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Ltd. and Another, AIR 2022 SC 4256, Asian Hotels (North) Ltd. vs. Alok Kumar Lodha and Others, (2022) 8 SCC 145 and Mohinder Kumar Mehra vs. Roop Rani Mehra, (2018) 2 SCC 132 in order to forty his contentions.

10. In L.I.C. of India (supra), the Apex Court laid down the parameters for allowing an amendment, which reads:

“70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:

(i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.

(ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not ca