AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 239 wordsSanjay K. Agrawal, J
By the impugned order dated 31/07/2019, learned Additional Principal Family Judge, Bilaspur has allowed the application filed by the respondent/defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment in her written statement against which this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the application filed by the respondent/defendant under Order 6 Rule 7 of the CPC has been allowed by the family Court after closure of plaintiff's evidence and as such, plaintiff will not be entitled to raise pleadings on the amended portion of the written statement and consequently, he will suffer prejudice if he is not allowed to amend his plaint and to give his statement on the amended portion of the written statement.
I have learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, considered his submissions and perused the records.
Learned family Court has assigned sufficient and valid reasons for allowing the application filed by the respondent/defendant under Order 6 Rule 7 of the CPC, as such, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. However, the petitioner/plaintiff will be entitled to amend his plaint and to adduce additional evidence to the extent of the amendment that has been incorporated by the respondent/defendant in her written statement.
With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost(s).