S. R. Rastogi, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's application in revision arising out of a suit filed by the opposite party no. 1 against the defendant-applicant and the opposite party No. 2 for a declaration that the opposite party No. 2 is the wife of opposite party No. 1. The defendant applicant is the father of the defendant opposite party No. 2. It was alleged in the plaint that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 was celebrated on 15-12-75 before an idol in the presence of some witnesses. In para 2 of the plaint it was alleged that after the marriage the parties executed an agreement of their own free will and consent thereby declaring that they had become husband and wife. An application for injunction was given by the plaintiff whereby it was prayed that the defendant No. 1 be restrained from marrying again and her father be also restrained from marrying his daughter to any other man.
(2.) THE trial court, by its order dated 13-5-1977, rejected that application for the reasons that the plaintiff had prima facie failed to establish his marriage and the balance of convenience was not in his favour. It was also held that no irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff in case the interim injunction was not allowed. THE plaintiff preferred an appeal against that order. THE appeal was decided by the District Judge Allahabad, vide his order dated 6-8-77. THE order of the trial court was confirmed. THE learned District Judge has observed: "THE manner of marriage alleged in the plaint clearly shows that it was not a valid marriage." It was also observed that if for a moment it was assumed that a valid marriage had taken place between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 and if the defendant No. 1 contracted another marriage the other marriage is valid in law. Thereafter an application for the amendment of the plaint was given by the plaintiff opposite party No. 1. It was stated in this application that certain typing mistakes had occurred in paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of the plaint. In paragraph 1 it was sought to add that the marriage had taken place in accordance with the custom prevailing amongst the Hindus and further 'Saptpadi' ceremony had taken place. In paragraph 3 it was sought to add that after the marriage the parties lived as husband and wife according to their religions. Similar amendment was sought in para 5 of the plaint. An objection was raised to this application on behalf of the defendants. It was contended on behalf of the defendants that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the entire case inasmuch as the plaintiff wanted to introduce a different form of marriage than what had been alleged in the plaint originally. Thus, he should not be allowed to change the nature of the case. It was also alleged that the application was not bona fide.
(3.) THE trial court, by its order dated 8-10-77 allowed the application for amendment on payment of some costs. Against this order the present revision application has been filed. It was submitted before me on behalf of the defendant applicant that the proposed amendment was not bonafide but was mala fide inasmuch as the omission of the words now introduced in the plaint could not be as a result of any typing error. It was only after the injunction application had been rejected by the trial court and that order had been confirmed by the appellate court and a view had been taken that the applicant had prima facie failed to establish that any marriage had taken place, that this application was given. It was urged that the basis of the suit was being changed inasmuch as the form of marriage now alleged was entirely different from that stated in the plaint originally.;