Honble Umeshwar Pandey, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. By the impugned orders passed by the Courts below petitioner’s obligation for impleading certain amendment in her written statement was refused.

3. The respondent’s husband filed a divorce petition before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) in the year 1998. During the pendency of this petition, the respondent’s husband moved an application for the custody of two sons, who were with their mother. After considering the whole aspect of the matter, the trial Court found that the custody of children should be given to their father and accordingly the application was allowed vide Annexure SA-2 to this petition.

4. The petitioner, however, did not seek any remedy further against that order before the appellate or revisional Court. Subsequently, she has moved an application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment to add certain facts about the children, who are presently in custody of their father. The statement of fact proposed to be incorporated in the pleadings is that the children are not being properly looked after by their father and, therefore, the custody of those minor children should be finally given through