Smt. Sajani Ratre vs Kamlesh Kumar Ratre
2023 Latest Caselaw 276 Chatt

                                1

                                                            NAFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                     WP227 No. 19 of 2023

    Smt. Sajani Ratre W/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar Ratre, Aged
      About 36 Years (Now) R/o Q.No. 85/G, Risali Sector Bhilai
      District Durg (C.G.), Present Address- Plot No.55, Flat No.4,
      SBI Colony, Junwani Bhilai, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

                                                   ---- Petitioner

                             Versus

    Kamlesh Kumar Ratre S/o Late Shri Baldev Prasad Ratre,
      Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Tilda Road, Kharora, Tahsil
      Tilda, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                 ---- Respondent

For Petitioner Mr. Vipin Tiwari and Ms. Manisha Jaiswal, Advocates

SB.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

13/1/2023

1. Heard.

2. Being aggrieved with the order dated 12.12.2022 passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, whereby, an application preferred by the petitioner/non-applicant under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been dismissed, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-applicant filed an application under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage, in which, the

petitioner/non-applicant- wife has filed the written statement on 8.2.2017. However, when the matter was fixed for the judgment, at that stage, the petitioner /non- applicant moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to treat her written statement as 'preliminary statement' as the same was her 'preliminary objection' and a typographical error has occurred and prayed that such typographical error may be allowed to be corrected. By way of such application, he petitioner has also sought amendment in the preliminary objection. The trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner with a cost of Rs.500/- vide the impugned order. Hence, this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff failed to demonstrate the purpose, for which, the amendment has been proposed, though she emphasized that the amendment is necessary for adjudication of the case.

5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court failed to discern the purpose, for which, the amendment has been proposed.

6. It is the solemn duty of a Counsel to always put the pleadings in a manner to advance justice. It appears that for the purpose of delaying the trial, such application has been moved, which is a clear abuse of the process of law.

7. The petition being bereft of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

Shyna