Anjanabai vs Rajendra Kumar

A.R. Tiwari, J.—This revision petition presented u/s 115 of the CPC (for short, ''the Code'') is directed against the part of the order dated 6-4-93 rendered by IV Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Ratlam in COS No. 20-A/92, whereby the application for amendment moved by the applicant was allowed only in part.

The matter pending before the Trial Court is under Hindu Marriage Act. The application had averred the facts in two paras categorised as 4-A and 4-B. The averments sought to be introduced vide 4-A pertained to the alimony admissible u/s 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act The Court below has rejected this part (4-B) of the amendment application on the ground that the facts are not considered necessary.

By order dated 24-6-93, a show cause notice against admission was issued. In response to this notice, the Counsel for the other side appeared. With the consent of the parties, the case was finally heard.

In Haridas Aildas Thadani and Others Vs. Godrej Rustom Kermani, (Haridas Aildas Thadani and Ors. v. Godrej Rustom Kermani) it is laid down as under :

"The Court should be extremely liberal in granting prayar of amendment of pleading unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side."

I have heard the Counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the Court below has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally. In the circumstances, this revision petition is allowed. Consequently, it is directed that the applicant shall be permitted to incorporate the averments detailed in para 4-A of her application in a main petition.

The other side shall be given an opportunity to apply for any consequential amendment in the light of this order.

This revision petition is, therefore, allowed in the terms indicated above, and that part of the order rejecting the prayer is subverted.