The court emphasized that the amendment in the cause of action paragraph cannot be declined on the ground of avoiding limitation and that the issue of limitation cannot be decided at the initial stage.

The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.113 of 2013, is aggrieved of the order dated 06.12.2016 by which the application dated 18.06.2015 seeking amendment in paragraph no.32 of the plaint has been rejected.

2. Plea urged on behalf of the petitioner is that at the initial stage of the suit, when issues have yet not been settled, all amendments which are necessary for adjudicating the real controversy in the suit must be allowed and at this stage merits of the amendment cannot be looked into.

3. Title Suit No.113 of 2013 has been instituted for a decree for declaration that gift-deeds no.4483, 4484 and 4485, all dated 22.05.1982 are forged, fabricated, null and void, ineffective and not binding on the plaintiff and by virtue of these gift-deeds the defendants have not acquired any right or interest in the properties comprised in those gift-deeds. The plaintiff has pleaded that the parties are descendants of a common ancestor namely, Sardar Hem Singh, who had acquired several properties during his life-time from his own income from agriculture. Sardar Hem Singh had four sons and three daughters and during his life-time he had entered into a family arrangement with his sons and distributed all his landed properties, house and homestead lands amongst his four sons. During the life-time of Sardar Hem Singh his two sons namely, Darshan Singh and Swaroop Singh met with premature death and his younger son namely, Surender Singh took control of the family, however, Sardar Hem Singh who felt that he was not being looked properly moved with his wife and his widow daughter Amarjeet Kaur @ Amarto to Quarter No.-L4/53, Old Baradwari, Sakchi which was allotted in favour of Gopal Kaur by TISCO Limited in lieu of the land surrenderd by Hem Singh for construction of New Kalimati Road, Fly Over Bridge and Slag Road. After sometime, the 3rd son of Sardar Hem Singh namely, Darshan Singh died in a road accident. Since February, 1981 Sardar Hem Singh fell ill and was brought by his younger son Surender Singh to his house. He died on 06.09.1982 after his prolonged illness. The plaintiff has pleaded that Sardar Hem Singh had lost his sense of identification and normal sense of perception and understanding. During that period he was not able to recognise persons. The plaintiff has further asserted that Sardar Hem Singh used to sign in Gurmukhi and he had never executed any document by putting his L.T.I. Infact, he has executed a registered sale-deed dated 31.05.1969 in favour of his grandson namely, Rabinder Singh wherein he has signed the document in Gurmukhi. The plaintiff has given details of various transactions by Sardar Hem Singh to demonstrate that the registered gift deeds no. 4483, 4484 and 4485, all dated 22.05.1982 and the WILL dated 25.05.1982 were forged and fabricated and not executed by Sardar Hem Singh. Facts pleaded in the paragraph nos.24 and 25 of the plaint, which are relevant for deciding the legality of the impugned order dated 06.12.2016, are extracted below:

24. That, in the year 1989, Surender Singh filed Title Suit No.-88/89 against Raghbir Singh & others legal heirs of Late Sawroop Singh (present Plaintiff No.-2) claiming right title on a portion of R.S. Plot No.-2431 in which the present Plaintiff No.-4 Hardeep Singh son of the late Darshan Singh also joined as intervener, in aforesaid Title Suit No. 88/89 originally, the claim of the plaintiff, (late Surender Singh) was originally based only on continuous possession since life time of his father without any whisper about executing registration of regd. Deeds of gifts and the present defendants tried to introduce a complete new claim based on one of the said deed of gift of the suit property of T.S. No.- 88/89 claimed to have obtained by them through Regd. Gift Deed by Sardar Hem Singh in their favour in 22.05.1982. Suppressing the story of any other deed of gift manufactured & fabricated in their favour on any date.

25. That, in fact for the first time only