SIGINAM UMA Vs. SIGINAM RAJESWARAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 28.08.2014 passed in I.A. No. 100 of 2013 in S.O.P. No. 82 of 2010 dated 28.08.2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovur, SPSR Nellore District. The facts in issue are as under:

(2.) A counter was filed by the second respondent denying the relationship of the petitioners 1 and 2 with the said Murali.

(3.) A perusal of the material placed before this Court would show that originally the case of the petitioner was that her marriage was performed with deceased -Murali on 25.07.2002 at Sri Rama Satyanarayana Swamy Devastanam, Tagarapuvalasa, Bhimili Mandal, Visakhapatnam as per Hindu rites and customs and she gave birth to the second petitioner on 21.09.2004. In the present application seeking amendment, the petitioner stated that her marriage with the deceased -Murali took place in the month of August 1996 at Narasimha Swamy Temple of Bhimili in the presence of friends of the deceased -Murali. According to her the first petitioner gave birth to a male dead child in the year 1997 and to a second male child in the year 2000, who also died after 10 days. Therefore, from the above, it is clear that the date of marriage stated in the main S.O.P. and also in the I.A. seeking amendment are totally different. Apart from that, the averments in the I.A. disclose that she gave birth to two male children. But the averments in the I.A. does not anywhere show the birth of the daughter with the said Murali. If the averments in the both the petitioners are taken into consideration there is also a change in the venue of the marriage. Definitely any amendment ordered will change the entire cause of action, causing grave injustice to the respondent No. 2. Further, as per amendment to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the court shall not permit any party to amend the proceedings, once the trial has commenced, unless the party establishes that in spite of due diligence, the same could not have been raised before the court earlier for amendment. Admittedly, the O.P., and the I.A., are filed by the petitioner only. These facts are exclusively within her knowledge. No reasons are mentioned as to why she could not mention her relationship with the deceased -Murali in the earlier O.P. Reason that due to ignorance she could not mention the above facts cannot be accepted without any proper explanation. The material on record further discloses that the respondent No. 2 herein filed her counter to the main O.P. denying the marriage of the first petitioner with late Murali on 25.07.2002 and claiming her marriage with Murali on 19.04.2000 at Buchchireddipalem. The matter was posted for enquiry on 30.01.2012 and thereafter the petitioner was examined as P.W.1. Through her the petitioners got marked Exs.A -1 to A -5. When the matter is coming up for cross -examination the present application has been filed. From the above, it is clear that the trial in the said case is already commenced and there is no proper explanation as to why the facts which are to the knowledge of the petitioner were not mentioned in the main O.P. Therefore, the finding of the trial court that the petitioners have failed to establish that in spite of their due diligence, they could not have raised the matter before the trial Court for amendment of the pleadings, cannot be found fault with. Since the amendment to the main O.P. will change the nature of the case, as new facts are sought to be introduced with regard to date, place and also the manner in which the marriage took place, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order.