ORAL JUDGMENT:

1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2.Heard Mr. Ramaiya for the Petitioner.

3. Even though the Respondent is duly served, she remained absent. It is submitted that intimation was also given to the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent before the Trial Court, however, there is no appearance.

4. The Petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Civil Court, rejecting the amendment Application filed by the Petitioner on the ground that during pendency of the suit for divorce, another ground became available to the Petitioner and therefore, on such ground also, the divorce could be granted.

5. Mr. Ramaiya appearing for the Petitioner would submit that when the Petition was filed, the ground with regard to three years of abandonment of the conjugal domicile was not available, however, during pendency of the said suit, such ground became available to the Petitioner and accordingly, an amendment Application was filed. He submits that the pleadings were not complete and evidence of the parties was yet to start. Thus, the amended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC with regard to due diligence would not attract. He submits that the learned Trial Court though con