SHIVANI MITTAL Vs. INDU GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant before the learned Trial Court against the order dated 10th March, 2021, whereby, the application moved by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was dismissed.

(2.) Mr. Vikas Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order does not consider whether the amendments sought were necessary for the just disposal of the case. It was submitted that the pleas were not available to the petitioner till the decision of this Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja , 2021 1 SCC 414, where the court held that the husband was a necessary party to any suit filed by his parents in respect of the property in which the estranged wife was residing.

(3.) Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons , 2009 10 SCC 84, to submit that the amendments sought by the petitioner were those of the nature that were to be allowed. It was also submitted that issues have not been framed so far and that trial has not commenced. It was also submitted that amendments were also with reference to the claim of the respondent that she had become the absolute owner of the suit property on account of a gift deed, but in fact there was only a Deed of declaration, and therefore, the petitioner had sought to challenge the claim of absolute ownership set up by the respondent. It was further submitted that the merits of the averments or the evidentiary value of the documents sought to be brought on record by the petitioner, were not to be considered at the time when the court was only considering the application seeking amendment. The learned counsel also pointed out that an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC was also pending, whereby the petitioner had sought the impleadment of the husband in the suit. The amendment sought was also to incorporate the pleas relating to the husband. Thus, it was prayed that the amendment be allowed.