Smt. Tanya Rekhi vs Dipender Singh Rekhi
2005 Latest Caselaw 1435 Del

ORDER

J.P. Singh, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned order dated 15.7.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi disposing of an application under Order 6 Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure. The following is the operational portion of the impugned order:

In Order 6 Rule 7, CPC it is specifically mentioned that in pleadings no party can raise new claim contrary to the previous one without amendment. This provision prohibits inconsistent pleas. In these circumstances, petitioner will bear all legal consequences with regard to admission made in the petition.

2. learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that in replication, petitioner has right to clarify all typographical error. However, learned Counsel for the respondent argued that in replication only the pleas made by respondent in the W.S. can be rebutted. Application under Order 6 Rule 7, CPC is disposed of accordingly.

3. I have heard Mr. R.S. Sahni, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y.P. Narula, Sr. Advocate, learned Counsel for respondent, on the point of admission, and have gone through the impugned order as also copies of the documents placed on the file.

4. Briefly the facts are that the respondent-husband herein filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The petitioner-wife herein filed written statement and thereafter the respondent-husband filed replication. In the replication the respondent-husband made some amendments in paras 7 and 14 relating to the petition explaining that the incident mentioned in para 7 of the petition relates to Rakhi festival in the month of August and not in April and tine wife is trying to take undue advantage of the said typographical error and has sef up a story about the Basakhi festival which comes in April every year. And in para 14, he has mentioned in the replication "it is denied that Rs. 5 lakh was spent during the trips of parties to Austria, France and Switzerland by the parents of the wife (respondent) as alleged. It is submitted that the petitioner has incurred every expense of every foreign trip of the parties and the details of which shall be furnished by the petitioner in this Hon'ble Court (Trial Court). The payments were made by cheques for foreign exchange for the air tickets as alleged. The averments made in the para under reply are false to the knowledge of the respondent and are denied."

5. In these circumstances, the wife (petitioner herein) moved an application under Order 6 Rule 7, CPC and prayed that no such amendment without permission from the Court could be made.

6. I have gone through the impugned order, the learned trial Judge after referring to contentions of both the parties, in my view, has passed a well reasoned order and has kept the option open as to whether the husband has really withdrawn any admissions from his petition. I may say that the application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC was simply uncalled for because in the replication all that the husband said was that the incident, mentioned in para 7, relates to Rakhi festival which falls in August and a perusal of the copy of the petition at page 10 of paper book shows that originally Rakhi was typed but after cutting "Rakhi", "Basakhi" was written in hand. Needless to say that Rakhi festival falls not in April and it will be a matter of evidence as to when the alleged incident if at all took place. In para 14 of the petition, the husband had alleged that he pampered the respondent and took her to Switzerland, Austria and France for two weeks. The parents of the respondent sponsored the trip costing around to Rs. 2 lakh. In the replication, he explained that the petitioner had spent the money and it was again a typographical mistake, therefore, he clarified that it was the petitioner who had spent the money.

Again it will be a matter of evidence as to who had made payments, if it were by parents of the wife the evidence will clarify this.

7. Needless to say that petition, written statement and replication comprise the total pleadings of the parties and the learned trial Judge has appropriately dealt with the matter in this regard and has left the option open to be seen at the time of evidence and when the final arguments are heard. I may mention here that the husband is paying expenses under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and such applications and the petition before this curt only delay the disposal of the case despite the fact that there is an inherent time limitation in the Hindu Marriage Act for disposal of the matters expeditiously.

8. Considering all the facts and circumstances, in my view the order is not perverse, it will not lead to any manifest injustice, the petition is vexatious and frivolous.

9. The same is, therefore, dismissed. The trial Judge is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously as provided in the Hindu Marriage Act.

10. Nothing said herein will tantamount to expression of opinion on the merits of the case.