Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard Sri Rajesh Gupt, learned counsel for wife petitioner and Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for husband respondent. Suit No. 963 of 2010, Ankur Bhardwaj v. Smt. Sweta Bhardwaj, has been instituted by husband respondent against wife petitioner before Family Court, Meerut for divorce/declaration of the marriage as nullity. Wife petitioner filed written statement, copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thereafter, wife petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C. seeking amendment in the written statement. The Family Court through order dated 21.3.2013 rejected the amendment application. The said order has been challenged through this writ petition. The amendment was as extensive as the written statement itself, if not more. Effective paragraphs in the written statement are paragraphs No. 22 to 30 (nine paragraphs). Through the amendment, paras-29-A to 29-M (14 paragraphs had been sought to be added). Copy of the amendment application is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. In the said application, the reason given for not incorporating the pleas sought to be added in the original written statement was to the effect that initially Sri Sandeep Chaudhery, advocate was doing pairvi in the case, however afterwards petitioner wife engaged Sri Mahendra Pal Gupta, advocate and Sri Gupta was cross-examining the plaintiffs witnesses and during preparation of the case, Sri Gupta, advocate suggested amendments.

2. An advocate cannot suggest improvement in the facts. Through amendment more facts in addition to the facts pleaded in the original written statement were sought to be added. Obviously these facts must be in the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing of the written statement. Absolutely no reason was given as to why those facts were not mentioned in the original written statement. It appears that just to delay the proceedings, the amendment was filed. All the necessary facts to oppose the plaint allegations had already been mentioned in the original written statement.

3. The Supreme Court in M/s Revajeetu Builders v. M/s N. Swami, 2009 (10) SCC 84, has held that filing amendment application is most patent device to delay the proceedings of the suit.

I do not find least error in the impugned order. Writ petition is therefore dismissed.