AMBILY Vs. SAJITHA P. CHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner calls into question the correctness of Ext.P4 order of the learned Family Court, North Paravur, to the extent to which it has allowed I.A.No.2/2024 in OP No.1019/2023.

(2.) Sri.N.Ajith - learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that Ext.P4 order is incorrect because, it not only allowed the request for amendment of the pleadings in the Original Petition, but it also permitted the impleadment of his client without any application to such purpose having been filed or allowed in the past. He contended that, without an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, the impleadment of his client - purportedly under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC - is impermissible. He thus prayed that this Original Petition be allowed.

(3.) In response, Smt.Kumari Sangeetha S.Nair - appearing for the first respondent, argued that the amendment allowed by the learned Family Court is without error, since it only incorporates an available cause of action against the sister- in-law of her client, who is also party to the matrimonial issues between the parties. He thus prayed that Ext.P4 be left uninterdicted.