JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. One Shanti Sarup executed a Will. Respondents 1, 2, 3 and 6 are his daughters. Respondent No.7 Ritu Sarup is the daughter of Respondent No.2. She had an accidental fall and became handicapped.

3. The Will was executed on or about 23.9.1999 bequeathing his properties in equal shares to the appellant and the said Ritu Sarup.

4. Appellant filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, inter alia, for declaration of his title to the suit properties and for a decree of permanent injunction. Respondent No.6 Leela Jetlley, on being served with the summons appeared through one Shri M.P. Vasudeva, Advocate. She filed a written statement admitting the averments made in the plaint.

5. A counter claim was filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 5. In their written statement, they did not deny or dispute execution of the Will by Shanti Sarup.

6. Respondent No.6, however, filed another written statement denying and disputing the claim of the appellants in toto. She also filed an application on 28.8.2000 for permission to take the first written statement off the records and to file another written statement on the premise that she had not engaged the said M