M.M. Singh Bedi, J.:-

1. This is a revision petition against the order annexure P-5 dated November 30, 2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, allowing an amendment of the Probate petition enabling respondent No. 1 to incorporate an alternative prayer for issuance of Letter of Administration.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the amendment of the Probate petition at belated stage of adjudication of the probate proceedings is not maintainable. He has contended that the Will of Pritam Singh, father of respondent No. 1 Surjit Singh and petitioner is to be adjudicated upon by the Court below. The Probate petition was filed on September 25, 2008 though the alleged Will is dated September 26, 1986 and their father Pritam Singh had died on February 17, 1992. He has argued that the written statement was filed on January 28, 2009 and issues were framed on June 3, 2009. When the arguments were being heard in November 2012 and an objection was raised by the petitioner that Probate petition was not maintainable, an application for amendment to incorporate the alternative prayer for issuance of Letter of Administration had been moved. It has been urged by counsel for the petitioner that no amendment can be allowed after commencement of the proceedings. As the issues had been framed on June 3, 2009, the Probate Court should not have permitted the amendment. He has also argued that the application for amendment was hopelessly barred by time. The original Probate petition filed in the year 2008 was already barred by time as it had been moved after a period of 16 years after the death of Pritam Singh.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Jain, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 has argued that the nature of the Probate petition has not been changed and that no additional evidence is sought to be produced by respondent No. 1. The amendment is only clarificatory in nature and is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties.

4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment in Kunrarjeet Singh Khandpur v. Kirandeep Kaur and others, 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 806 in support of his contention that a petition for Letter of Administration can be filed within a period of limitation of 3 years as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act. In the said judgment, it was observed that right to apply for Letter of Administration is a continuing right which can be exercised any time after the death of deceased.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the objective behind amendment is to wriggle out of the limitation of three years which is prescribed for seeking probate under Section 278 of the Succession Act.

6. Mr. Jain, has contended that for legal purposes, there is no difference between Probate and Letter of Administration. He has submitted that when executor is appointed, then a petition for Probate can be filed but when no executor is appointed, in those circumstances, the appropriate remedy is to seek the Letter of Administration by filing application under Section 278 of the Succession Act. He has also argued that the amendment sought for is merely a rectification of technical error which will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the petitioner as respondent No. 1 does not want to lead any evidence after seeking the amendment. He has also placed reliance on following judgments:--

"1. Dela Gurudal Vanjari v. Uddhal Govardhan Rathod, 2012 (3) CCC 163 (Bombay), wherein it was observed that when the proposed amendment does not fundamentally change the nature of the suit; appears to be bonafide; and permitting amendment would curtail multiplicity of litigation, the application for amendment of plaint can be allowed. In the said judgment it was further observed that the contention of the defendant that proposed amendment would take away the right of the defendant to raise defence of limitation, can be safeguarded by directing trial Court to c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document