Judgment Satya Brata Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against the order dated 25.4.87 passed by Shri J.F. Kujur, 3rd Additional District Judge, Patna, in Matrimonial Suit No. 56 of 1985, whereby and whereunder the said learned Court while allowing the said application for amendment of an application filed under Sec.10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, permitted the applicant thereof to add Sri Lal Babu and one Sri Ashok Kumar as opposite parties in the aforementioned application describing them as persons having adulterous relationship with the petitioner hereof. 2. The opposite party filed the aforementioned application for judicial separation purported to be under Sec.10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 making various allegations therein against the petitioner. By reason of an application for amendment of the said application which is contained in annexure-1 to this civil revision application, it was asserted that as the petitioner was of a bad character having adulterous connection with several young men, the names and address of some of them, so far as ascertained, bad been given at the foot thereof and the opposite party had been advised to add the said persons as parties to the application in order to avoid future complication. 3. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has drawn my attention to paragraph 10 of the application filed by the opposite party Under Sec.10 of the Hindu Marriage Act and contended that the statement made therein do not make out a Case that the petitioner, after the solemnisation of the marriage, has voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than her spouse. The learned Counsel submitted that in view of the fact that no case, as contemplated under Sec.13(l)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, has been made out, the learned Court below has misdirected itself in passing the impugned order by allowing the application for amendment filed by the Opp. party and therein adding two persons as co-respondents in the suit. 4. Mr. B.P. Pandey, the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party, on the other hand, has drawn my attention to the Patna High Court Rules framed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and submitted that in view of the Rule 16 of the said Rules unless co-adulteror is made a co-respondent, the application itself is bound to fail. 4. Mr. B.P. Pandey, the learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party, on the other hand, has drawn my attention to the Patna High Court Rules framed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and submitted that in view of the Rule 16 of the said Rules unless co-adulteror is made a co-respondent, the application itself is bound to fail. The learned Counsel in this connection has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in PIL J.R. 1986 (N.O.C.) (D.E.) page 44 for the purpose of showing that such a co-respondent may be added even in an appeal before the High Court. 5. Mr. Pandey has further submitted that necessary averments have been made both in paragraph 10 as well as in last sentence of paragraph 12 of the application Under Sec.10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . From a perusal of the said statements it would appear that necessary ingredients of extra marital sex of the petitioner have not been avirred. 6. It is now well known that the allegation of adultery and/or extra marital sex has to be specifically pleaded. In my opinion, the aforementioned statements, as contained in paragraph 10 of the application for judicial separation or in the last sentence of paragraph 12 thereof do not make out a case as contemplated Under Sec.13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act. 7. For the purpose of obtaining a decree for judicial separation by the opposite party against his wife of the ground that she was having extra marital sex, it was incombent upon him to make specific allegations and only in such event, the question of invoking Rule 16 of the Patna High Court Rules framed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 could arise. 8. Evidently such is not the case here. It is now well known that a Court shall not allow an application for amendment unless it is necessary for adjudication of the issues involved therein. Even no issue has been framed by the learned Court below to the effect as to whether the petitioner was having extra marital sex with other persons or not for being determined in the suit. 9. Mr. Pandey, thereafter contended that the petition filed by the opposite party for amendment of the said application should be treated as one Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code instead of an application under Order VI Rule 17 thereof. 9. Mr. Pandey, thereafter contended that the petition filed by the opposite party for amendment of the said application should be treated as one Under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Code instead of an application under Order VI Rule 17 thereof. 10. True it is, that levelling of an application does not matter and in an appropriate case the Court may consider an application for amendment of a plaint to be an application for addition of parties. But in such a situation also such a person must be necessary party or proper party to the suit. 11. In view of my aforementioned finding that the statements made in paragraph 10 of the plaint does not make out a case as envisaged Under Sec.13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, in my opinion, there cannot be any doubt that the co-respondents, who are sought to be added, were not necessary parties to the suit as no allegation has been made as against the petitioner that she was having extra marital sex with the said persons or with others. Extra marital sex with any person other than her spouse is one of the grounds on the basis whereof an application for diverse or judicial separation can be filed and in absence of such allegation, such an application will not be maintainable. 12. In view of my aforementioned finding that no case under Sec.13(1)(i) of the said Act. has been made out in paragraph 10 of the application, it must be held that the learned Court below has exercised his jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity or in allowing the said application for amendment. Further the said application for amendment is also vague. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 13. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.4.87 is set aside. But in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.