Hindu Marriage Act | Every Amendment Sought To Pleadings Can't Be Allowed, Party Must Show Irreparable Injury: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that an amendment application may only be allowed if the party seeking amendment can show that there will be irreparable injury or justice will not be done in case the amendment sought is not allowed.

Court was hearing an appeal against the order of the Family Court rejecting application seeking amendment in written statement on the ground that it was necessary amendment. It was argued that the appellant-husband had missed raising the objection in the written statement that the respondent-wife had set up a claim contrary to Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Court noted that proceedings were at the fag end, when pleadings were already exchanged, and evidence had been led and completed by the parties. Further, it was noted that the Family Court had specifically dealt with contentions of the Appellant in the impugned order. Thus, the Court held that “no second opportunity may easily arise to change the stand already taken.”

Rejecting the reliance placed by the Appellant on Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., bench comprising of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal held,

“The principle of law being invoked by learned counsel for the appellant on the strength of decision of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra), is not applicable inasmuch as the said decision does not lay down the principle that each and every amendment sought must be allowed. On the contrary, the principle laid down clearly suggests, the amendment may be allowed if it is shown to the Court that unless the amendment is allowed, the parties seeking amendment may suffer an irreparable injury or it may defeat the cause of justice or result in further litigation.”

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Case Title : Abhishek Singh v. Shashi Singh @ Bindu Singh [First Appeal No. - 995 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 341

Counsel for Appellant: Janardan Singh

Counsel for Respondent: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Anurag Upadhyay

Click Here To Read/Download Order