ORDER :

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein order dated 20.02.2018 passed in Title (Matrimonial) Suit No.239 of 2012 has been challenged whereby and where under the petition for amendment in the plaint dated 20.02.2018 (annexure-4) and petition filed under Order 14 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. (annexure-3) have been rejected, is under challenge.

2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as per the pleading made in this writ petition is that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed matrimonial suit being Title (Matrimonial) Suit No.239 of 2012 before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro praying therein for declaration of the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent as nullity under the provision of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The trial has commenced and on the basis of the proposed issue filed by the parties, following issues have been framed:-

i. Whether this suit is maintainable in its present form?

ii. Whether there is any valid cause of action of this suit?

iii. Whether the respondent is suffering incurable mental disease of schizophrenia?

iv. Whether the plaintiff and his family members subjected the respondent to cruelty for demand of dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- and Alto Car?

v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

3. The trial has proceeded and reached to the stage of arguments and at this juncture, both the petitions have been filed one under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. and other under Order 14 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. The petition under Order 14 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. has been filed for allowing the plaintiff to incorporate in paragraph 2(xx), Section 12 (1) (C) which could not be mentioned due to typographical error though the entire pleadings of the petitioner revolve around the mental illness of the respondent prior to marriage and suppression of this material fact by the respondent and her family members.

4. The petition under Order 14 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. has been filed for inserting issue by way of additional issue i.e.

“whether the respondent parents of the respondent Nishi Sinha intentionally and deliberately suppressed the incurable insanity before the plaintiff Om Prakash Sinha and parents of the plaintiff”.

5. The trial Court having rejected both the petitions vide order dated 20.02.2018, this writ petition has been filed.

6. Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the finding given by the trial Court in rejecting both the petitions is cryptic since the same has been rejected only on the ground that the same has been filed at the belated stage.

7. According to her, the amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. can be allowed at any stage of the trial which is for proper adjudication of the dispute and therefore, the finding to that effect, the said petition has been filed belatedly as erroneous finding.

8. So far as the petition under Order 14 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. is concerned, it has been submitted that the additional issue to the effect i.e. “whether the respondent’s parents of the respondent Nishi Sinha intentionally and deliberately suppressed the incurable disease before the plaintiff Om Prakash Sinha and parents of the plaintiff” is necessary to be incorporated for adjudication of the real issue because the dispute germinated from that point since according to the petitioner if the parents of the respondent could have informed regarding suffering of the respondent with the said disease, the marriage would not have been solemnized and therefore, the said issue needs to be incorporated by way of additional issue for proper adjudication of entire issue.

She has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. Vrs. Damodar Valley Corporation, reported in (1996) 1 SCR 796 : AIR 1967 SC 96.

9. Mr. Prem Pujari, learned counsel for the respondent while defending the impugned order has submitted that there is no infirmity in the same