ORDER : This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein order dated 20.02.2018 passed in Title (Matrimonial) Suit No.239 of 2012 has been challenged whereby and where under the petition for amendment in the plaint dated 20.02.2018 (annexure-4) and petition filed under Order 14 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. (annexure-3) have been rejected, is under challenge. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as per the pleading made in this writ petition is that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed matrimonial suit being Title (Matrimonial) Suit No.239 of 2012 before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bokaro praying therein for declaration of the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent as nullity under the provision of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The trial has commenced and on the basis of the proposed issue filed by the parties, following issues have been framed:- i. Whether this suit is maintainable in its present form? ii. Whether there is any valid cause of action of this suit? iii. Whether the respondent is suffering incurable mental disease of schizophrenia? iv. Whether the plaintiff and his family members subjected the respondent to cruelty for demand of dowry of Rs.4,00,000/- and Alto Car? v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for? 3. The trial has proceeded and reached to the stage of arguments and at this juncture, both the petitions have been filed one under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. and other under Order 14 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. The petition under Order 14 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. has been filed for allowing the plaintiff to incorporate in paragraph 2(xx), Section 12 (1) (C) which could not be mentioned due to typographical error though the entire pleadings of the petitioner revolve around the mental illness of the respondent prior to marriage and suppression of this material fact by the respondent and her family members. 4. The petition under Order 14 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. has been filed for inserting issue by way of additional issue i.e. “whether the respondent parents of the respondent Nishi Sinha intentionally and deliberately suppressed the incurable insanity before the plaintiff Om Prakash Sinha and parents of the plaintiff”. 5. The trial Court having rejected both the petitions vide order dated 20.02.2018, this writ petition has been filed. 6. Mrs. 5. The trial Court having rejected both the petitions vide order dated 20.02.2018, this writ petition has been filed. 6. Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the finding given by the trial Court in rejecting both the petitions is cryptic since the same has been rejected only on the ground that the same has been filed at the belated stage. 7. According to her, the amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. can be allowed at any stage of the trial which is for proper adjudication of the dispute and therefore, the finding to that effect, the said petition has been filed belatedly as erroneous finding. 8. So far as the petition under Order 14 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. is concerned, it has been submitted that the additional issue to the effect i.e. “whether the respondent’s parents of the respondent Nishi Sinha intentionally and deliberately suppressed the incurable disease before the plaintiff Om Prakash Sinha and parents of the plaintiff” is necessary to be incorporated for adjudication of the real issue because the dispute germinated from that point since according to the petitioner if the parents of the respondent could have informed regarding suffering of the respondent with the said disease, the marriage would not have been solemnized and therefore, the said issue needs to be incorporated by way of additional issue for proper adjudication of entire issue. She has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. Vrs. Damodar Valley Corporation, reported in (1996) 1 SCR 796 : AIR 1967 SC 96 . 9. Mr. Prem Pujari, learned counsel for the respondent while defending the impugned order has submitted that there is no infirmity in the same rather the petitioner while filing the plaint was conscious with all the facts but now he wants to incorporate either by way of amendment or by way of additional issue. 10. 9. Mr. Prem Pujari, learned counsel for the respondent while defending the impugned order has submitted that there is no infirmity in the same rather the petitioner while filing the plaint was conscious with all the facts but now he wants to incorporate either by way of amendment or by way of additional issue. 10. He submits that so far as the prayer sought for by the petitioner in a petition under Order 14 Rule 5, the petitioner has filed the proposed issue to the effect as “whether the respondent’s parents of the respondent Nishi Sinha intentionally and deliberately suppressed the incurable insanity before the plaintiff Om Prakash Sinha and parents of the plaintiff” but the trial Court has not formulated the said issue at the time of framing of the issue on 13.09.2013 which the petitioner has not assailed, now the same cannot be said to be additional issues rather, it can be said to be leaving out the said issue and as such the petitioner ought to have questioned immediately after framing of issue, at the relevant point but the petitioner has not chosen to do so and when the stage of argument has come, the petition under Order 14 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. has been filed for making the same issue as additional issue. 11. 11. So far as petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. is concerned, it has been submitted that Section 12 (1) (C), which has been sought for to be incorporated in paragraph 2(XX) which contains with the conditions to declare the marriage as voidable to the effect, that the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner, the consent of such guardian was obtained by force but this was very much known to the petitioner as would be evident from the statement made at paragraph-XII of the plaint, wherein it has been stated on approaching to the concerned doctor of the Bokaro General Hospital, and came to know that she is an old patient of psychiatric and is being treated regularly in Bokaro General Hospital after seeking and verifying the concerned registers of Bokaro General Hospital, meaning thereby the petitioner is incorporating the said fact in the plaint and it can well be said that the said fact was within the knowledge of the petitioner and therefore, it should have been incorporated in the original plaint and now if it will be allowed to be incorporated, the trial which is at the stage of argument will again will come at the stage to its initiation and therefore, the entire trial will be lingered and furthermore that the nature of entire dispute will also change, therefore, it has been submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, it is evident from the material available on record that the matrimonial title suit filed by the petitioner (husband) on the ground of mental illness of the respondent (wife), after appearance of the parties, the petitioner has filed the proposed issue as would be evident from the annexure-6 annexed to the supplementary affidavit one of its i.e. “whether the respondent’s parents of the respondent Nishi Sinha intentionally and deliberately suppressed the incurable insanity before the plaintiff Om Prakash Sinha and parents of the plaintiff” and thereafter the issues which have been framed on 13.09.2013 which is being quoted here-in-below:- “(1) Whether the plaintiff Om Prakash Sinha and respondent Nishi Sinha were major on the date marriage on 25.04.2012. (2) Whether both the parties in suit had occasion before marriage to judge their ability, mental status or not? (2) Whether both the parties in suit had occasion before marriage to judge their ability, mental status or not? (3) Whether selecting the both parties each other by them independently or it was selected by the family members of both the contesting parties. (4) Whether the respondent parents of the respondent Nishi Sinha intentionally and deliberately suppressed the incurable insanity before the plaintiff Om Prakash Sinha and parent of the plaintiff. (5) Whether there is convincing and unimpeachable documentary evident in support of insanity of the respondent Nishi Sinha which was deducted when she came to remain to plaintiff and his family members.” 13. The issues pertaining to the issue no.4 of annexure-6, the same is being incorporated here-in-below:- “(4) Whether the respondent parents of the respondent Nishi Sinha intentionally and deliberately suppressed the incurable insanity before the plaintiff Om Prakash Sinha and parent of the plaintiff.” The proposed issue no.4 has not been inserted for its adjudication but the said order by which the issues have been framed, leaving apart the issue no.4 as contained in the proposed issues which is being quoted hereinabove. 14. The petitioner has not assailed the aforesaid order being dated 13.09.2013 rather accepted the same and proceeded with the trial and when it has reached in the stage of the argument petition under Order 14 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. has been filed, seeking a direction from the Court to insert the issue no.4 in the proposed issue as referred hereinabove as additional issue. The provision of Order 14 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. confers power upon the Court to strike out the issues which the Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matter in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. 15. 15. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that the Court in order to adjudicate the issue properly and amend the issue or framed the additional issue, the question is that can issue which has been sought to be incorporated by way of additional issue will be said to be an additional one, the answer of the same is negated, for the reason that the said issue has been incorporated in the proposed issue as referred hereinabove which have been left out by the trial Court by framing the issue on 13.09.2013 and hence the said issue cannot be said to be additional one rather it was the main issue by way of proposed issue and when it has been left out by the trial Court the petitioner/plaintiff ought to have assailed the said order at the relevant point but instead of doing so, the petitioner kept mum and when the case has reached to the stage of argument the petition under Order 14 Rule 5 has been filed, in view of the fact that the issue has already been proposed by the petitioner and when it has been left out, the same being referred not to be an additional one and as such, at the stage of argument, the same has not been allowed and rightly not been allowed, in view of provision of Order 14 Rule 5 of the C.P.C., since the parties are knowing about the said issue very consciously accepting the issue framed by the trial Court. 16. In view thereof, the rejection of the petition under Order 14 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. has suffered from no infirmity. 17. So far as the petition under Order 6 Rule 17 is concerned, it has been filed to incorporate Section 12 (1) (C) which stipulates that the prior information is to be furnished by the parents for the consent of the petitioner, or where the consent of the guardian in marriage of the petitioner, the consent of such guardian was obtained by force or by fraud as to the nature of the ceremony or as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the respondent. 18. 18. There is no dispute about the position of law that the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. can be allowed at any stage of the trial and after amendment in C.P.C., the word has been inserted under Order 6 Rule 17, “due diligence” which suggests that “if parties are not knowing about any factual aspect for adjudication of the issue and in spite of all endeavors, it has not been brought in plaint which needs to be there for proper adjudication, meaning thereby sincere efforts is to be shown by the parties to the trial Court. The amendment can also be allowed if the nature of suit will not be changed subject to the limitation. 19. Here in the instant case, the petitioner has taken the plea in the plaint regarding suffering of the respondent from the disease like schizophrenia as would be evident from paragraph 12 of the plaint, meaning thereby, the petition was well within the knowledge of the petitioner/plaintiff regarding alleged mental suffering of the petitioner, as such, the provision as contained under Section 12 (1) (C) ought to have been incorporated in the plaint. 20. Further, it is evident that there is no pleading to the effect as has been sought to be incorporated by way of additional issues, and rightly done so, as because the issues are to be framed on the basis of pleading. 21. Further, At this juncture, if the said provision would be allowed to be incorporated, the entire trial will come around at the stage of the framing of the issue and now the stage is of the argument and therefore, the trial Court has rejected it by referring the reason to delay, since the matter is at the stage of argument. 22. Since the argument can be allowed at any stage of trial, it does not mean that the parties if knowing about the factual aspect and consciously in not taking the plea will be allowed to amend the prayer, even at the stage of trial that would be meaning of the due diligence and that have been incorporated by way of amendment with effect from 07.02.2002. 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court by referring to the judgment in the case of A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. Vrs. 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court by referring to the judgment in the case of A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. Vrs. Damodar Valley Corporation (supra) wherein it has been laid down at paragraph 28 that if the amendment is just and proper and is not prejudicing the interests of the parties, the amendments must be allowed, there is no dispute about the settled position of law but it is equally important that the judgment is to be seen on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each and every case and on the basis of the principal that there is no general application of the judgment rather it is to be assessed on the basis of the factual aspect involved in this case. 24. This Court after going across the pleading made in the writ petition and finding given by the trial Court in the impugned order found that the factual aspect revolves around in the aforesaid judgment is quite different, hence the same is not applicable. 25. This Court is sitting under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore looking into the illegality and impropriety of the order, hence, thought it proper to discuss the jurisdiction of the High Court conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 26. This Court intends to go through the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dealing with the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vrs. Rajendra Shankar Patii, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 has been pleased to laid down therein regarding the scope of Article 227 which relates to the supervisory powers of the High Courts and by taking aid of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vrs. Sukumar Mukherjee, reported in AIR 1951 Calcutta 193, wherein it has been laid down that Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not vest the High Court with limit less power which may be exercised at the court’s discretion to remove the hardship of particular decisions. The power of superintendence confers power of a known and well recognized character and should be exercised on those judicial principles which give it its character. The power of superintendence confers power of a known and well recognized character and should be exercised on those judicial principles which give it its character. In general words, the High Court’s power of superintendence is a power to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of the authority, to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. 27. The power of superintendence is not to be exercised unless there has been; (a) An unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in a court or tribunal; or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction; or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in courts or tribunals. 28. Further, in the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken aid of a judgment rendered in the case of Mani Nariman Daruwala Vrs. Phiroz N. Bhatena, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 141 wherein it has been laid down that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court can set aside or reverse finding of an inferior court or tribunal only in a case where there is no evidence or where no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the court or tribunal has come to. 29. The Hon’ble Apex Court has made it clear that except to this limited extent the High court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of facts. 30. Further, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani Vrs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 576 it has been laid down that the High Court under Article 227 cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. Its exercise must be restricted to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. 31. It has been laid down at paragraph 47 of the aforesaid judgment that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is not original nor is it appellable. This jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 is for both administrative and judicial superintendence. Therefore, the powers conferred under Article 226 and 227 are separate and distinct and operate in different fields. 31. It has been laid down at paragraph 47 of the aforesaid judgment that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is not original nor is it appellable. This jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 is for both administrative and judicial superintendence. Therefore, the powers conferred under Article 226 and 227 are separate and distinct and operate in different fields. Another distinction between these two jurisdictions is that under Article 226 the High Court normal annuls or quashes an order or proceedings but in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court, apart from annulling the proceeding, can also substitute the impugned order by the order which the inferior tribunal should have made. 32. It has further been laid down regarding the powers to be exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence, can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and courts subordinate to it within the bounds of its authority, in order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested with them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. Apart from that, High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunals and courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 33. In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised. 34. In view thereof and taking into consideration the factual aspect in its entirety under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as also for the reasons assigned above, the order does not suffer from any infirmity, hence, the instant writ petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed. 35. Interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated.