The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the discretion to allow the amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, as provided under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, especially when the trial has not yet commenced.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Mata Pher for the petitioner and Mr. Raj Singh for the respondents.

2. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed for sitting aside the impugned order dated 27.5.2022 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Sant Kabirnagar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent filed a matrimonial case registered as Case No. 13 of 2016 (Indra Jeet Yadav Vs. Neeta Yadav) for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petitioner has submitted her reply therein on 2.2.2018 denying the allegation made by the respondent. During pendency of the said case, an amendment application was filed by the petitioner in which the respondent filed his objection on 26.5.2022. He submits that when the difference arose between the petitioner and the respondent, a counselling took place on 15.1.2015 at Aastha Cell, Headquarters Central Command, Lucknow and the respondent wrote a letter dated 16.1.2015 to the Chairman, Aastha Cell, Headquarters Central Command, Lucknow stating therein that he was satisfied with the counselling and willing to live happy married life with her wife i.e. petitioner. He submits that the said letter dated 16.1.2015 was not available with the petitioner, therefore, she could not file the same along with the written statement / objection and after getting the same, an amendment application has been moved which was rejected by the court below in an illegal and arbitrary manner.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that amendment application has only been filed with intention to linger on the proceeding and the same is pending at the behest of the petitioner.

5. The court has perused the records.

6. The record reveals that some matrimonial dispute arose between the parties in which counselling took place in Aastha Cell, Headquarters Central Command, Lucknow and thereafter husband -respondent wilfully wrote a letter dated 16.1.2015, to the Chairman stating therein that he should take care his wife and live happily with her. But later on, case has been filed for dissolution of marriage on various allegations, which has been denied by the petitioner-wife. As and when the said letter was available with the petitioner she moved an application for amendment.

7. Supreme Court in Baldev Singh and others Vs. Manohar Singh and another, 2006 (6) SCC 498 has held as under :

9. Keeping this principle in mind, let us now consider the provisions relating to amendment of pleadings. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with amendment of pleadings which provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. A bare perusal of this provision, it is pellucid that Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure consists of two parts. The first part is that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to amend his pleadings and the second part is that such amendment shall be made for the purpose of determining the real controversies raised between the parties. Therefore, in view of the provisions made under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC it cannot be doubted that wide power and unfettered discretion has been conferred on the Court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such manner and on such terms as it appears to the Court just and proper. While dealing with the prayer for amendment, it would also be necessary to keep in mind that the Court shall allow amendment of pladings if it finds that delay in disposal of Suit can be avoided and that the suit can be disposed of expeditiously. By the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 a proviso has been added to Order 6 Rule 17 which restricts the Courts from permitting an amendment to b