The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the authority to allow an amendment for introducing an additional claim for the issue of letters of administration in line with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act and the Indian Succession Rules, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to ensure justice.

The first defendant in O.S.1 of 1991 on the file of the District Court, Kottayam is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. Respondents herein made an application for letters of administration under S.278 of the Indian Succession Act. The application was for the issue of letters of administration in respect of a Will said to have been executed by one Varkey on 20-6-1987. The application was in terms of the Indian Succession Rules (Kerala), 1968. R.8 there of provides that the application for letters of administration with the will annexed shall be made by petition in Form No.4 as set out in the said Rule. Form No.4provides for certain details to be furnished in the application The application for letters of administration was contested in terms of the Rules by the revision petitioner. The proceeding therefore became contentious within the meaning of the Rules. In terms of R.26 of the Rules, the application was converted into a suit.

2. The revision petitioner disputed the genuineness and the due execution of the will dt. 20-6-1987. According to the respondents there was an earlier will of the year 1975 executed by the same testator and the same will had been revoked by the 1987 will. Apprehending that one of the attesters had changed sides and therefore they may not be able to prove the due execution of the latter will, the respondents herein thought of introducing an additional claim for the issue of letters of administration of the will dt.8-10-1975 in case it was found by the court that the due execution of the 1987 will was not proved. This application for amendment made under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was opposed by the revision petitioner contending inter alia that no such amendment is permissible, that Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application and that if the respondents herein want to claim letters of administration in respect of the 1975 will, they had to make a separate application in terms of the Rules and that the court exercising the probate jurisdiction has no authority to allow an amendment of this nature. No authorities were cited before the Court below on the question as to whether an amendment could be allowed or could not be allowed in proceedings under the Indian (Kerala) Succession Act as regulated by the Indian Succession Rules, 1968. The trial court allowed the amendment sought, on the following reasoning:

"3. On going through the records I am convinced that in the interest of justice, for avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and technical pleas of res judicata in future litigations, it is essential to adjudicate upon the validity of the wills executed by same person in respect of his properties, in the same proceedings. Both counsel for parties were not able to show me any precedent for or against the view taken by me. The amendment will not harm respondent in the least and they are not expected to be concerned about strangers who are entitled to notice.

4. Justice is paramount and the law is only her handmaid. The subject matter of the suit to be administered is more important than the form of Will relating to it".

It is the correctness of this order of the court below that is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition by the Revision Petitioner.

3 It is submitted by counsel for the revision petitioner that though the procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure can be applied as far as may be in the trial of a contentious proceeding and though in terms of R 26 of the Rules converted into a suit, it is not really a suit in the sense understood by the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order 6 Rule, 17 in the case on hand cannot be automatically applied to such a suit. He also points out than he application for letters of administration is hedged in by formalities prescribed Ss.278 of the Act and Rules 7 and 8 of the Rules and that unless those formalities are complied with, no prayer