Smt. Omwati vs Shri Ramanand & Others

Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

This is defendant's petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 27.08.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Dehradun in Original Suit No. 222 of 2013, whereby her application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. to amend the written statement was refused and further the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by learned Additional District judge 1st, Dehradun in Civil Revision No.137 of 2016, whereby learned revisional court affirmed the order dated 27.08.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Dehradun.

From the perusal of the record it appears that respondent No. 1 filed a suit for possession in the court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Dehradun, which was registered as Original Suit No. 222 of 2013. Issues were framed in the said suit in the year 2016. After filing an affidavit of evidence-in-chief of P.W.1, petitioner filed an application seeking amendment in the written statement on 04.07.2016, wherein she questioned the divorce decree passed against the petitioner on 07.12.1979. Thereafter evidence of P.W.-1 has been completed.

It transpires that respondent/plaintiff in para 4 of his plaint has categorically stated that husband of petitioner - Late Sri Ramchandra had obtained a divorce decree against petitioner from the court of learned Civil Judge, Dehradun vide order dated 07.12.1979 and particulars of the divorce suit was also given in the plaint. This statement in the plaint was casually denied by the petitioner in her written statement. Subsequently, by an amendment, petitioner sought to question the divorce decree on the ground that it was obtained ex-parte. Petitioner also challenged the competence of her mother-in-law to execute the Will in favour of respondent.

I have gone through the order passed by learned trial court as well as judgment rendered by revisional court. I concur with the view taken by learned courts below. Learned courts below have rightly recorded that there was no due diligence on the part of the petitioner and all the facts were well known to her at the time of filing of written statement, which was filed on 16.12.2013. Moreover, the nature of the suit would be changed, if amendment, sought by the petitioner, is allowed.

In such view of the matter, I am of the opinion that no interference with the impugned orders is called for in exercise of supervisory powers, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.