BIMLLA BHAGAT Vs. SURESH BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 17.8.2004 vide which the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar has rejected the application moved by the petitioner-wife under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the written statement.

(2.) THE petitioner wife by way of amendment has sought to plead that during the marriage, the respondent-husband had developed illicit relations with one Sunita and solemnized a second marriage with her by converting to Muslim religion from Hindu religion on 4.2.2002. The petitioner also sought to assert that Nikah Nama was entered in the record of Lakhdat Bajar and an intimation to this effect was made through writing dated 25.6.2002 to the Administrator, Department of Aukh, Residency Road, Jammu by Charan Dass. The petitioner also sought to prove that the respondent herein cohabited with Smt. Sunita in the house of Dr. Sudesh Nauharia at Jamalpur, Ludhiana and started working in the Nauharia Hospital, Ludhiana. The petitioner further averred that she came to know about these facts from Sudesh Nauharia, who is sister's husband of the petitioner. It was further stated in the application that a case under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. was also registered and that the respondent-husband had remained absent from duty and ultimately he was dismissed from service by J&K Government. This fact was published in the newspaper on 10th of December 2003. This amendment was sought on the ground that these facts came to the knowledge of the petitioner after filing of the written statement and accordingly she sought amendment to insert these facts by adding para 3 as preliminary objection and also wanted to amend 3rd line of para 5 of the written statement. An application was also filed by her under Section 151 of the CPC for correction of the name in para 2 of the amended application as Satish Nauharia instead of Sudesh Nauharia. similarly the name of Sudesh Chander was sought to be changed in stead of Suresh Chander.

(3.) THE learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, rejected the said application on the ground that the same has been filed at a belated stage and further that the petitioner could not be allowed to take altogether different plea. Rather the ground of rejection was that it was not the case of the petitioner herein that these facts were not known to her earlier.