PAULAMI BHOWMIK Vs. ASIT SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant-wife lays challenge to the order dtd. 11/9/2018 passed by learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Agartala, West Tripura in case No. T.S.(RCR) 290 of 2013, titled as Sri Asit Saha v. Smti. Paulami Bhowmik, whereby her application for amendment of the written statement stands rejected by the trial Court.

(2.) Perusal of the order dtd. 11/9/2018 (supra) reveals the reason for rejection by the trial Court to be inordinate delay of 4(four) years in placing on record certain facts, sought to be brought, by way of an amendment of pleadings. Now, significantly, the trial Court, in the order does not at all refer to the amendment which is sought to be incorporated. It also does not state that the defendant-wife had been procrastinating the proceedings/trial or that the application seeking amendment was filed solely with the purpose of delaying the proceedings or that it was an abuse of process of law. It also does not deal with the aspect as to whether the party, despite due diligence, was precluded from raising the matter, i.e. place on record material facts by way of amendment, prior to the commencement of trial.

(3.) What the Court is required to see, apart from exercise of due diligence, precluding the party from raising the matter, is as to whether rejection of such application would cause injustice or prejudice to either of the parties. Also the Court is required to see as to whether the amendment sought to be incorporated is necessary for determining the real question in controversy, inter se the parties. Even before this Court, what is only canvassed on behalf of the plaintiff-husband is that the wife was aware of all the facts and delayed the application by 4(four) years.