ANJU Vs. SATISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S. K. Tyagi, Advocate, for appellant and Sri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate, for respondent.

(2.) This appeal under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1984") has arisen from order dated 05. 01. 2018 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut rejecting appellant's Amendment Application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C. Court below has found that application was moved at the stage when virtually evidence was already recorded and there was no explanation, as contemplated under proviso to Order-6, Rule 17 C. P. C. as to why amendment has been sought at such a belated stage.

(3.) When questioned, learned counsel for appellant could not add any fact other than what is mentioned in Amendment Application that these facts were left by mistake. This is no explanation whatsoever to maintain Amendment Application at such a late stage though required in view of proviso of Order 6 Rules 17 C. P. C.