The Allahabad High Court while dismissing an appeal said that the amendment application may be allowed if it is shown to the Court that unless the amendment is allowed, the parties seeking amendment may suffer an irreparable injury or it may defeat the cause of justice or result in further litigation.
The Division Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwa passed this order while hearing an appeal filed by Abhishek Singh.
The appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 arising from the order dated 01.08.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Mau. By that order, the court below has rejected the application filed by the appellant seeking amendment in the written statement.
Counsel for the appellant states, the amendment sought to introduce the written statement. 12-A was necessary. According to him, the case set up by the respondent is contrary to the provisions of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That plea has remained from being raised in the written statement. Thus, it is in the interest of justice that such amendment be allowed.
Also, it has been urged that irreparable injury would be caused to the appellant if such amendment is not allowed. In that regard, he has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs Sanjeev Builders Pvt Ltd & Anr, 2022 7 SCC 136.
The Court observed that,
Perusal of the impugned order reveals, the proceedings were instituted in the year 2019. The pleadings were exchanged. Evidence has been led and completed by the parties.
Further, the court below has considered the prayer made by the appellant and found the same to be unfounded.
It has observed, in paragraph no 2 of the plaint, the respondent had clearly stated, she had received the items in dispute at the time of her marriage and ‘vidai’. Thus, it is not as if the appellant has been surprised or that the respondent has changed her stand.
The case of the parties was known to the other from the beginning. Pleadings having been exchanged and evidence having been led, no second opportunity may easily arise to change the stand already taken, the court said.
“The principle of law being invoked by the counsel for the appellant on the strength of decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra), is not applicable inasmuch as the said decision does not lay down the principle that each and every amendment sought must be allowed. On the contrary, the principle laid down clearly suggests, the amendment may be allowed if it is shown to the Court that unless the amendment is allowed, the parties seeking amendment may suffer an irreparable injury or it may defeat the cause of justice or result in further litigation.
In view of the facts noted above, that principle is clearly not invokable in the case”, the Court further observed while dismissing the petition.