2025:CGHC:20399 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1008 of 2023  Smt. Gitanjali Sirmour W/o Shri Devendra Kumar Sirmour Aged About

41 Years R/o, D/1, Adarsh Nagar, Durg, Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.),...(Applicant)

... Petitioner(s)

versus  Devendra Kumar S/o Bodhram Sirmour Aged About 43 Years R/o D/1, Adarsh Nagar, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg (C.G.),...(Non-Applicant)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board

05-05-2025

1) By way of this petition, petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Case No. 94/2021 dated 04.09.2023 whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC has been rejected.

2) Facts of the present case are that suit was filed by the respondent-

Husband for dissolution of marriage according to the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty ; petitioner-Wife filed written statement and denied plaint averments and ; learned Family Court framed issues. Thereafter, petitioner moved application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of CPC proposing therein nine additional issues.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner-Wife submits that reply was filed by the respondent-Husband to the application but learned Family Court rejected the application without assigning sufficient reasons. He prays that order passed by the learned Family Court dated 04.09.2023 may be set-aside and petition may kindly be allowed.

4) Heard.

5) Perusal of the petition would show that petition was filed on 02.12.2023 and Registry pointed out certain defaults in the petition. Thereafter, case was listed for orders on defaults on 20.12.2023 and 23.02.2024 and time was sought for by the counsel appearing for the petitioner to cure those defaults. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel again prays for time.

6) In this petition, petitioner has not placed on record the copy of plaint filed under Section 13(1) of the Act, 1955 and the issues framed by the learned Family Court. Further, perusal of the order impugned would show that issues have already been framed by the learned Family Court. In absence of copy of plaint, it can’t be inferred that the issued proposed by petitioner are relevant.

7) For framing of issues, petitioner was required to file copy of the plaint filed under Section 13(1) of the Act, 1955 and copy of the written statement to demonstrate relevant averments affirmed by plaintiff and denied by defendant.

8) Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC reads as under:-

5. Power to amend and strike out, issues.

(1)The Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed.

(2)The Court may also, at any time before passing a decree, strike out any issues that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced.

9) Perusal of the documents placed on record would show that petitioner failed to place on record relevant documents to demonstrate her case and to fulfill the requirements of Order 14 Rule 1 of CPC. Further, petitioner has also failed to rectify the defaults pointed out by the Registry.

10) Therefore, in opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference.

Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

JUDGE Ajinkya