The court emphasized that amendments to pleadings should be allowed to ensure justice and avoid multiplicity of litigation, focusing on subsequent events affecting the case.

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 considered that the amendment is with regard to the additional ground of abandonment of conjugal domicile, however, rejected the amendment Application only on the ground that there was no cause of action for filing such Application as the period of three years was not over when the suit was filed.

6. The record clearly goes to show that the Petitioner filed a suit for divorce under Article 4(4) of the Law of Divorce on the ground of maltreatment and cruelty. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the Petitioner claimed that there was complete abandonment of the conjugal domicile by the Respondent for more than three years and as such, when this ground became available to the Petitioner, he filed an amendment Application. However, the learned Trial Court completely failed to consider the settled proposition of law as to whether the amendment is essential for deciding the dispute and instead, went on to discuss the aspect of cause of action and accordingly, dismissed the amendment Application.

7. Mr. Ramaiya while placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Antonio Ferdino Varela Vs. Thereza Maria Angela Varela, 2014 (5) Bom. C.R. 117 would submit that the scope of the amendment is only to find out as to whether, such plea could be raised for the purpose of just decision of the suit. In the said decision of Antonio Ferdino Varela (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court observed in paragraphs 7 and 9 as under:

7. I have already referred to the reasons on which the plea of additional ground for divorce has been dis-allowed to be taken by the petitioner. Atleast from one of those reasons, it becomes clear that the learned District Judge has entered into the merits of the plea sought to be taken by the petitioner. While considering an amendment application, it is well settled law, it is not open to the Court to enter into the merits of the plea sought to be raised and the Court has to decide the application purely on the basis of the principles applicable to the amendment of pleadings contained in Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. The relevant considerations could be, whether the amendment is necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties, what is the stage of the proceeding when amendment application is filed, and if it is filed after commencement of trial, whether the plea could have been raised before commencement of the trial. The learned District Judge, however, by finding that pendency of application for restitution of conjugal rights showed that separation was not freely consented, decided on merits of the plea, which is not permissible. Therefore, on this ground itself, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.

9. As regards the objection that the application for amendment of plea by incorporating the aforesaid plea was