Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010164482022 2025:GAU-AS:17128 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/193/2022 BIJAY KUMAR JALAN S/O RAMAWATAR JALAN, R/O WARD NO. 10, DERGAON, P.S.-DERGAON, PIN-785614, DIST-GOLAGHAT, ASSAM VERSUS SMT. SMREETY JALAN W/O SRI BIJAY KUMAR JALAN, R/O NEW BALIBAT, P.O. AND P.S.-JORHAT, DIST-JORHAT, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DAS SR. ADV, MR. R KONWAR,MR H ALI,MR D TALUKDAR,MR. U K BARMAN Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N BARMAN, MR. R SARMA,MR. P P BARUAH BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 09.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. U.K. Barman, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.P. Baruah, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Page No.# 2/7 Procedure, 1908 read with Section 151 of the said Code has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sri Bijay Kumar Jalan, impugning the order dated 22.07.2022, passed by the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Jorhat in Misc. (J) Case No. 29 of 2022, in connection with Title Suit (M) No. 175/2019. 3. The facts relevant for adjudication of the instant civil revision petition in brief are that the respondent had instituted a matrimonial suit before the court of the learned Additional District Judge, Jorhat seeking dissolution of her marriage with the petitioner. The said title suit was registered as Title Suit (M) No. 175/2019. The suit is pending at the stage of examination of plaintiff’s witnesses. 4. After cross-examination of the PW-1 in the aforesaid suit, the present respondent had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for amendment of the cause-title of the plaint by inserting “Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955” in place of “Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954” in the cause-title of the Petition No. 1104/2019 (plaint). 5. By the impugned order, the said prayer was allowed after hearing both sides and the cause-title of the plaint was accordingly amended. 6. On being aggrieved by the said order the instant civil revision petition has been filed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent has prayed for allowing the amendment of cause-title of the Page No.# 3/7 divorce petition only with an intention to fill up the lacunae and develop her case. 8. He submits that originally the divorce case was filed under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, whereas, after amendment of the cause-title a suit has been converted into a divorce case under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and therefore, nature of the case has been altered. 9. He further submits that the trial court did not gave the present petitioner an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order. 10. He further submits that after cross-examination of PW-1, on 04.06.2022, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Order 26 Rule 6 of the said Code with a prayer for summoning the Marriage Officer, along with the marriage certificate of alleged marriage between the parties. However, the said application is yet to be decided by the trial court. 11. Hence, he submits that if the amendment of the cause-title is allowed to remain, the aforesaid application filed by the respondent become infructuous. 12. He submits that it is the case of the respondent’s wife that her marriage was solemnized with the present petitioner under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and after cross-examination of PW-1, on realizing the lacunae in her case. Page No.# 4/7 13. The amendment petition is filed for filing up of the lacunae. He submits that the amendment allowed by the impugned order has changed the nature and character of the aforesaid suit. 14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. P.P. Baruah, has submitted that though an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed by the present respondent, however, the respondent has only prayed for correction of cause-title of her divorce application and no amendment of impleading was prayed for. 15. Hence, he submits that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 may not be applicable in this case. 16. He submits that it is only a case of wrong quoting of provisions of law in the cause-title of the original petition of petition No. 1104/2019. He submits that since no pleading were amended, it does not change the nature and character of the suit. 17. He submits that a suit remains a divorce suit. He also submits that in her divorce petition, the present petitioner has categorically stated in paragraph No. 2 that her marriage with the present petitioner was solemnized on 31.01.2008 at Jorhat by following social rituals and the said fact has also been admitted by the present petitioner in his written statement. 18. Hence, by allowing the respondent to rectify the cause-title of the divorce petition by incorporating “Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955” in place of “Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954” will only serve the ends of justice and the trial court has committed no error in Page No.# 5/7 passing the impugned order. 19. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Union of India and Anr. Vs. S.C. Parashar” reported in “(2006) 3 SCC 167” as well as a ruling of the High Court of Kerala in the case of “Abdul Khader Vs. Naseema” reported in 2022 Supreme (Online) (KER) 54632. 20. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. 21. On perusal of the impugned order dated 22.07.2022, it appears that the trial court has allowed a prayer for amending the cause-title of the divorce petition No. 1104/2019 by substituting the phrase “Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954” with the phrase “Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.” 22. It also appears that there is no prayer for amending any of the pleading of the plaint and the amendment was only limited to the amendment of cause-title. The trial court allowed the said prayer mainly on the ground that putting wrong provisions of law may not be a ground for throwing away the petition. 23. It mainly allowed the prayer in the premises that court is not powerless to allow correct mentioning of the legal provisions in the petition in case of any omission or error in mentioning the court provisions of law. 24. This court finds no infirmity in the impugned order to that effect. Page No.# 6/7 Moreso, it is the pleaded case of the respondent in her divorce petition that she was socially married to the petitioner as per Hindu rituals. Said fact has also been admitted by the petitioner in the written statement filed by him before the trial court. 25. Moreover, this court is also in agreement with the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in the case of “Abdul Khader Vs. Naseema” (supra) whereby, it has observed that provisions of law quoted in the cause-title of a petition is not a material fact within the meaning of Order VI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and therefore, is not a part of the pleadings and as such the embargo of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall not have any application to such case. 26. As regards objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard before passing of the said order, it appears on bare perusal of the impugned order that both the parties were heard and represented before the trial court on the day when the said order was passed. Moreover, it also appears that the learned counsel for the defendant conceded to the prayer for making amendment of the cause-title. 27. It also appears on perusal of the order dated 22.07.2022, that both the sides were heard on the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on that day. Hence, it appears that the record available before this court appears contrary to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Page No.# 7/7 28. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs as well as reasons stated therein, this court does not find any illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order dated 22.07.2022, justifying any interference by this court with the same. 29. This civil revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 30. Send back the trial court records forthwith. 31. The interim stay on further proceeding of Title Suit (M) No. 175/2019 which was granted by a co-ordinate bench of this court on earlier occasion’s stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant