JUDGMENT Mr. Amit Rawal J.(Oral):- The petitioner, who is wife seeking divorce against thehusband, in essence, petitioner before the trial court when the petitionreached at the final stage sought following relief in the plaint, which has been rejected by the trial Court:- “2. That while preparing the case for rebuttal evidence andarguments it has come to the knowledge of thepetitioner/applicant through its Special Power ofAttorney holder that month of departure has beenwrongly typed while typing the original petitioninadvertently as 10.05.2011 instead of 10.06.2011. 3. That by way of present amendment thepetitioner/applicant wants to correct the month of thedeparture of the petitioner to England in para No.6 of the original petition as 10.06.2011 instead of10.5.2011, after the words left for England on andwants to add 10.06.2011 instead of 10.05.2011 as wellas in para No.7 of the petition after the words Thatafter instead of 10.5.2011 as 10.06.2011 by way ofpresent amendment. 4. That the applicant wants to add the month of Decemberin Para No.8 of the original Petition prior to th wordyear 2013 and after the word India in.” 2. Mr. Aakash Singla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of thepetitioner submitted that the petitioner has moved an application underSection 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce on two groundsnamely (i) cruelty and (ii) desertion. The inadvertent error surfaced/came to the knowledge of the petitioner only at the time of arguments, for, thesecond amendment pertaining to adding of the word “December” before2013 in para 8 of the petition as admitted in cross-examination is relevant,which has been extracted in para 4 of the revision petition and as well as thecorrection with regard to the date of departure instead of 10.05.2011 to10.06.2011. 3. The aforementioned amendment is in clarificatory manner,much less, would be falling within the expression clerical and would nottake away any right or withdrawal of the admission prejudicial to theinterest of the respondent-husband, thus, the rigours of the amendedprovisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC caused in 2002 would not come in theway of the petitioner. This fact has not been noticed by the trial Court, thus,urges this Court for setting aside the order under challenge. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraisedthe paper book. Before proceeding further, this Court asked a question toMr. Singla as to whether copy of the passport indicating the date ofdeparture has been proved in accordance with law, the answer was innegative. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraisedthe paper book. Before proceeding further, this Court asked a question toMr. Singla as to whether copy of the passport indicating the date ofdeparture has been proved in accordance with law, the answer was innegative. In the absence of any evidence, the aforementioned pleading, inmy view, would be an exercise in futility. An alleged admission relied inpara 4 of the revision petition, which reads as under, would, in my view,takes care of the amendment as sought:- “…It is correct that petitioner had visited India in December2013….It is correct that she left for U.K. after two weeks in themonth of January 2014 but I do not remember the date…Thepetitioner landed in India at Amritsar Airport in December2013….” 5. Therefore, it would not be necessary to cause the amendment.In the absence of the passport, amendment qua date of departure asindicated in the application for amendment, in my view, has not been soughtat an appropriate stage, much less, without any evidence on record. 6. In view of the aforementioned, I do not intend to differ with theorder passed by the trial Court, which cannot be said to be passed exceedingthe jurisdiction vested in the trial Court. The revision petition is dismissed