petitioner according to the Hindu rites and customs. In sum and substance the case set up by the petitioner herein before the trial court by way of reply was that she is second wife of Shri Tiwari, whereas by way of amendment she has proposed to amend and plead that she is the wife of Shri Tiwari as the respondent No.1 has already deserted her, and as such the petitioner has proposed entirely different and new case by way of amendment which cannot be allowed. In the matter of A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Vally Corporation4 the Supreme Court has held that in the matter of allowing amendment of the pleading the general rule is that a party is not allowed by amendment set up a new case. Likewise, in M/s. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd . (supra) the Supreme Court has held that the party to the suit cannot be allowed to set up a entirely different new case substituting the original pleading. However, the decision cited by Mr. Koshta upon Usha Balashaheb Swami (supra) and Premchand Agrawal (supra) are clearly distinguishable to the fact of the present case and therefore, there is not applicable. In the result I do not find any jurisdiction error in the impugned order passed by the trial court rejecting application for amendment filed by the petitioner herein and, as such, writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).
