Balwinder Singh vs Karnail Singh & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 7891 P&H

                            255
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                      CHANDIGARH

                                                                                   CR-583-2017 (O&M)
                                                                            Date of decision : 27.07.2022


                            Balwinder Singh                                                  ... Petitioner(s)

                                                                Versus

                            Karnail Singh & Ors.                                           ... Respondent(s)



                            CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN



                            Present :      Mr. Karan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                           Mr. Mayank Mathur, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                                           Mr. Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 7.

                                           Mr. Ramandeep, Advocate for respondent No.4.



                            ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

The present revision petition under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed to challenge the order dated 11.01.2017

(Annexure P-1) dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for

amendment of the plaint.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner would contend that

the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is

owner and in possession of the estate left by Smt. Shardi wife of Hari Ram

on the basis of Will dated 17.03.2006 and that the Will propounded by the

defendant-respondents was illegal, null and void. Learned counsel for the

plaintiff-petitioner would further contend that the application for amendment YOGESH SHARMA 2022.07.28 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh
                             CR-583-2017 (O&M)                                                       -2-

of the plaint had been moved at the stage when the evidence of the plaintiff-

petitioner had just commenced. It is further the contention of learned

counsel that the Will propounded by the plaintiff-petitioner clearly states

that the plaintiff-petitioner would inherit all the movable and immovable

assets owned by Smt. Shardi and, hence, the amendment now sought would

not change the nature of the suit in any manner. By way of the amendment

the plaintiff-petitioner sought to add certain FDRs and a savings bank

account in the suit property.

Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant-respondents

would contend that the suit was filed on 23.12.2009 and the issues were

framed on 03.05.2012. The factum of the FDRs was well within the

knowledge of the plaintiff-petitioner and, hence, the application for

amendment of the plaint has rightly been dismissed.

Heard.

In the present case the Will propounded by the plaintiff-

petitioner states that all the movable and immovable properties owned by the

Testator of the Will (Smt. Shardi) shall devolve upon the plaintiff-petitioner.

The present amendment whereby the details of the FDRs and a savings bank

account have been sought to be incorporated in the suit property would in no

manner change the nature of the suit. In any event, in case the Will as

propounded by the plaintiff-petitioner is found to be genuine, the plaintiff-

petitioner would be entitled to all the movable and immovable assets of Smt.

Shardi.

YOGESH SHARMA 2022.07.28 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh
                             CR-583-2017 (O&M)                                                    -3-

In view of the above and keeping in view the fact that no

injustice would be caused to the defendant-respondents by allowing the

application for amendment of the plaint, the impugned order dated

11.01.2017 (Annexure P-1) is set aside. The application under Order 6 Rule

17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is allowed subject to the payment

of Rs.30,000/- as costs to be paid to the defendant-respondents by the

plaintiff-petitioner.

Disposed off accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also

stand disposed off.

                                                                          ( ALKA SARIN )
                            27.07.2022                                        JUDGE
                            Yogesh Sharma

NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : YES/NO

YOGESH SHARMA 2022.07.28 11:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh