SMT. PIU KUNDU Vs. DR. BIJOY KUNDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of Family Court Act, 1984 against the order dated 19.01.2017 passed by Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Suit No. 886 of 2012 under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, Dr. Bijoy Kundu v. Smt Piu Kundu whereby Principal Judge, Family Court has decided to hear an amendment application A-11 before application under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent Dr. Bijoy Kundu filed a suit for annulment and dissolution of marriage on 28.04.2012 on the ground of cruelty and desertion. During pendency of suit and before written statement could be filed by the appellant Smt. Piu Kundu, the respondent moved an amendment application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C on 21.09.2013. But before the amendment application could be decided, the appellant defendant put in her appearance and moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C for rejection of plaint on the ground that no cause of action has arisen. However, the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C was rejected by a short order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court against which First Appeal No. 23 of 2016 was filed in which the order was set aside with a direction to decide the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C i.e C-7 a fresh after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

(3.) However, Principal Judge, Family Court by means of impugned order, fixed a date for hearing of the amendment application prior to disposal of the application under Order 7, Rule 11 i.e C-17 as the amendment application was moved much before C-17. Dissatisfied with the impugned order, present appeal has been filed by the appellant defendant.