2025:UHC:2042-DB SL. No . Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS A.O. No. 43 of 2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. Mohit Kumar Kashyap, Advocate for the appellant. 2. Respondent has filed a Divorce Petition against the appellant, which is pending before Family Court, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar and numbered as Suit No. 390 of 2019. Respondent moved an application, seeking leave to amend his plaint, which has been allowed by learned Family Court, vide order dated 16.11.2024. Thus, feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been filed by the wife, challenging the said order. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since issues were framed, the application seeking leave to amend could not have been allowed in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which is extracted below:- “17. Amendment of pleadings.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 4. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Goyal v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2615 has held as under:- “11. At this juncture, before proceeding to the merits of the case, let us consider the law relating to the amendments of pleadings. 11.2 Over the years, through numerous judicial precedents certain factors have been outlined for the application of Order VI Rule 17. Recently, this Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., after considering numerous precedents in regard to the amendment of pleadings, culled out 2025:UHC:2042-DB certain principles:— (i) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (ii) In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side. (iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the same should be disallowed if - (a) By the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side. (b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations) (c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit; (d) The prayer for amendment is malafide, (e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence. (iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are - (I) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach. (III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint.” 5. Since, learned Family Court found the amendment to be clarificatory and necessary for determining the real question in controversy and allowed the application subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2000/-, and nature of the suit is also not going to change, by amending the plaint, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the reasoned order passed by learned Family Court. 6. Thus, the Appeal fails and is dismissed. (Ashish Naithani, .J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, .J.) 21.03.2025 Navin