Delhi High Court
Man Mohan vs Shri Sham Lal & Others on 29 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000 (52) DRJ 542
Author: M Sarin
Bench: M Sarin
ORDER
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. This is an application moved under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC seeking an amendment in the plaint. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and defendant's mother Late Smt. Sumitra Devi made a Will dated 25.10.92, bequeathing the property in question L-II-66, First Floor, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-24 to the plaintiff and defendant. The plot and the house were subsequently partitioned by her. It is stated that in the Will itself the testator had expressed the hope that the two sons namely plaintiff and defendant No.1 would look after the disabled son Shakti Swaroop and provide for his expenses.
2. The present amendments sought by the plaintiff on 20th September, 1994 is that to the effect that the younger sister of Smt. Sumitra Devi, Smt. Chand Rani and Krishan Lal Anand, close relative of the family, told the plaintiff that on 25.2.1983, that Smt. Sumitra Devi had revoked her Will dated 25.10.82 and made a new arrangement in respect of shares in the property bearing No. L-II-66, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The reply to the application has been filed. Amendment is vehemently opposed by Mr. Gupta and Mr. Bagga who appear for the defendants. It is stated that the property in question had already been partitioned in terms of the Will executed which had been accepted. The present attempt is to somehow get out of the partition already implemented. It is stated that the whole case for amendment is based on hearsay evidence.
3. Normally amendments are to be liberally allowed to give full opportunity to the party to prove its case for an effective and complete djudication of the matter in controversy. The merits of the amendments are not to be gone into. However, there are exceptions to this in situations where the amendment sought amounts to retraction of the admissions made or the facts and circumstances are such that they completely falsify and make the amendment sought incredulous. The Court would not allow such amendments, which would prolong the litigation or set up a new case which is patently false. In the present case, it is noticed that the plaintiff is not setting forth another Will. The plaintiffs whole case for amendment is on the basis that he learnt from his Aunt about the new arrangement on 20th September, 1994. The suit itself was filed on 29.9.1994, yet the plaintiff took no steps to incorporate the present plea sought to be introduced by amendment. The amendment is thus highly belated and seeks to set up a contrary and new case.
For the reasons discussed above the application is dismissed with cost of Rs. 1,000/-.
