An order rejecting an amendment application is an interlocutory order and not appealable under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, as it does not decide substantive rights.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Kiran Kumar Arora, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Aditya Bhushan Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Present appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), arising from order dated 4.10.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur on Application Paper No. 39A/1-3, filed [under Order VI Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’)], by the present appellant in Original Suit No. 323 of 2022 (Parag Goyal Vs. Smt. Anchal Goyal), whereby the learned court below has dismissed the amendment application filed by the present appellant, seeking to introduce the following two paragraphs as paragraph nos. 54 v and 54 c , to her written statement.

HINDI IMAGE

Mr. Karan Anand, on instruction, submits that the applicant is ready to live with the respondent wife"

HINDI IMAGE

3. At the outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondent that the present appeal is not maintainable under Section 19 of the Act. For ready reference, Section 19 of the Act to the extent it is relevant to the present proceeding, reads as below:

"19. Appeal – (1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.

(2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties [or from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974):

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending before a High Court or any order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974) before the commencement of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991 (59 of 1991)].

(3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgement or order of a Family Court.

[(4) The High Court may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which the Family Court situate within its jurisdiction passed an order under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order, not being an interlocutory order, and, as to the regularity of such proceeding.]

[(5)] Except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, order or decree of a Family Court.

[(6)] An appeal preferred under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Bench consisting of two or more Judges.”

4. During the course of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to and relied on the provisions of Section 115 CPC as amended and in force in the State of U.P. Section 115 CPC (as in force in the State of U.P.) to the extent relevant to the present discussion reads as below:

"115. Revision – (1) A superior court may revise an order passed in a case decided in an original suit or other proceeding by a subordinate court where no appeal lies against the order and where the subordinate court has -

(a) exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or

(b) failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or

(c) acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”

5. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is, the issue whether an order rejecting an amendment application is a "case decided" is no longer res integra. A five-judge Full Bench of this Court in Rama Shanker Tiwari Vs. Mahadeo & Ors., (1968) ALJ 109, had the occasion to consider the following question:

"Whether an order passed Under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, either allowing an amendment or refusing to allow an amend