CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS matter coming up for orders on i. A. No. 11, revision petition itself is taken up for hearing by consent of. Counsel for parties and disposed of by following order. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the parties have been heard. The facts are these:- petitioner Joseph D'souza filed a petition under Section 22 of the Indian Divorce Act seeking decree for judicial separation inter alia on the ground that the respondent - prescilla Rodrigues had left him since 24-10- 1983 and despite a number of attempts made by him, she had not rejoined his company as his legally wedded wife. He also alleged that he issued a registered notice through his counsel which also did not yield any result. Therefore, he presented the petition seeking a decree for judicial separation. From the averments in the petition, it is clear that the petitioner and respondent lived as husband and wife only for a period of 5 months. ( 3 ) THE petition was opposed by the respondent justifying by reasons for leaving the company of her husband. The details of the stand taken in the objection statement need not be gone into by this Court. It suffices to state that parties went to trial on several issues and both sides have closed their case. ( 4 ) PETITIONER Joseph D'souza made an application la. No. II seeking'an amendment of the petition to add at the appropriate place the expression that the respondent had left his company without justifiable cause. That application was resisted and the Court found in favour of respondent and rejected the amendment application as highly belated and prejudicial to the respondent. ( 5 ) IN this Court it is contended as it was contended before the trial Court that the amendment is only formal and it does not alter either the cause of action or the nature of the proceedings and therefore it ought to have been allowed. In fact the learned counsel even offered to give an undertaking to this Court that he will not cause any delay by seeking to lead any evidence on the amendment if permitted. It demonstrates that his object was not to prejudice the case of the respondent or delay the proceedings. I do not think this Court should put to trouble the Counsel for giving such an under- talcing. It demonstrates that his object was not to prejudice the case of the respondent or delay the proceedings. I do not think this Court should put to trouble the Counsel for giving such an under- talcing. ( 6 ) ON a careful reading of the petition, a true copy of which is furnished at the time of passing this order, it is seen, in substance there is sufficient plea to state the case of the petitioner in regard to the fact of the respondent having left his company. Therefore, the amendment sought to include the expression is no more than to bring it in conformity with the language employed in Section 22 of the indian Divorce Act. Thereby neither the cause of action nor the nature of the proceedings is altered. Since the parties have already led evidence in support of their pleadings, there is no need to permit fresh evidence to be led even if amendment is permitted. The learned trial Judge has totally misdirected himself in recording a finding that the defence of the respondent will be prejudiced. How it is prejudiced is not at all stated by the learned Judge. In the case of m/s Ganesh Trading Co. v Moji Ram (A. I. R. 1978 S. C. 484), Chief Justice Beig, as he then was, in a well considered judgment has explained the scope of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the need for liberally construing the provision to permit the amendment when it does no more than amplify or clarify what is already stated in the plaint. A number of decisions both in england and in India rendered earlier than the decision in M/s. . Ganesh Trading Co. , have been referred to. I have already observed that the amendment sought by the petitioner was only formal and therefore ought to have been permitted when it was established that neither the cause of action nor the nature of the proceeding would stand altered by permitting the amendment. Therefore, the fact that it was made one year after filing of the suit is no bar to permit the amendment which is no more than amplification or formal amendment to bring the pleadings in the line with the language employed in the statute. Therefore this revision petition succeeds. ( 7 ) THE order of the learned trial Judge on ia. Therefore this revision petition succeeds. ( 7 ) THE order of the learned trial Judge on ia. No. II in M. C. No. 25 of 1986 is set aside and amendment sought for by the petitioner is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. The Court below will now proceed to hear the arguments and dispose of the matter without adjourning the case for sufficient cause or to enable the respondent to file a additional statement, if she choses to do so. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .