JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner, who is defendant in Matrimonial Suit No. 07 of 2012, is aggrieved of order dated 07.07.2017 by which amendment in the plaint has been permitted. 2. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that successive amendment applications for amending the plaint should not have been permitted by the trial Judge, moreover, when the plaintiff has not pleaded the reason for not seeking the amendment at the initial stage. 3. In her amendment application dated 04.08.2016, the plaintiff has pleaded as under : "a) In cause title of plaint as well as in the entire plaint where ever the section under Hindu Marriage Act, or the word under Hindu Marriage Act has been mentioned the same may be deleted and the following sections and word may be added :- b) Petition u/s 27(d) read with 38 of the Special Marriage Act." 4. Order VI Rule 17 CPC itself provides that amendment in the pleadings can be permitted at any stage of the suit. The fundamental test when an amendment in the pleadings can be permitted is whether the proposed amendment is necessary for adjudicating the real controversy involved in the suit. The trial Judge in its order dated 07.07.2017 has observed that previously the suit was instituted under the Hindu Marriage Act, which, by an order dated 27.04.2017 has been permitted to be converted into a suit under the Special Marriage Act. The amendments which have been permitted by the impugned order dated 07.07.2017 are necessary corollary of the order dated 27.04.2017. 5. In the above fact, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 07.07.2017, the writ petition is dismissed.