Judgment

Mr. Arun Monga, J.

Petition herein is for setting aside order dated 05.12.2022 (Annexure P-7) passed by Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hisar, whereby an application for amendment of plaint, was dismissed.

2. Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the instant petition.

2.1. Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 21 Kanals 01 Marla, being 1/6th share of total land measuring 126 Kanals 9 Marlas, situated at Village Barwala, Tehsil Barwala, District Hisar and is also owner in possession of 1/6th share in respect to two plots and residential house situated at Dhani Khan Bahadur, Tehsil and District Hisar, as the property is ancestral in nature and being joint Hindu family property, petitioner/plaintiff is entitled for the said share. Further, challenge has been laid to will No.205 dated 16.03.2011 executed by deceased Phoosa Ram, on the ground that suit properties being ancestral and joint Hindu family property, the distribution of the same ought to have been in equal share and further the Will No.206 dated 16.03.2011 executed by respondent/defendant No.1 (mother of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 6) has been cancelled at the behest of respondent/defendants No.2 to 5 so as to deprive petitioner/plaintiff of his legitimate right.

2.2. Further, a decree of permanent injunction has been sought for restraining respondents/defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of land measuring Kanals 0 Marla situated at Dhani Khan Bahadur, Tehsil Barwala, District Hisar and for possession of remaining land measuring 6 Kanals 8 Marlas and for partition and possession of 1/6th share of plots/residential house has been prayed for.

2.3. Upon notice, respondent/defendants No.1, 3 & 4 and respondent/defendant No.6 filed a separate written statement, controverting the averments made in the plaint.

2.4. Petitioner/plaintiff rebutted the averments made in the written statement by filing rejoinder on the ground that as respondent/defendant No.1 on 13.08.2021 alienated the suit land measuring 12 Kanals 10 Marlas in favour of respondent/defendant No.4 and land measuring 8 Kanals 6 Marlas in favour of respondent/defendants No.2 to 5 vide registered release deed dated 13.08.2021 (Annexure P-4). Further, mutation No.17318 of the said release deed was sanctioned on 06.09.2021. Also respondent/defendants No.2 to 6 had also taken possession of land measuring 2 Kanals 16 Marla illegally from petitioner/plaintiff, leaving the latter with possession of 12 Kanals 4 Marlas.

2.5. As during the pendency of the suit, the suit land was alienated in favour of respondent/defendants No.2 to 5, which has direct bearing upon the rights of petitioner/plaintiff qua the suit land and being a subsequent event, the necessity arose for seeking amendment of plaint. Consequently, application (Annexure P-5) under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was filed. Respondent/defendant No.6 raised no objection to the said application. Whereas respondents No.1 to 5/defendants contested the same by filing joint reply.

2.6. Vide impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the said application.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would argue that amendment of plaint is required for avoiding multiplicity of litigation; the alienation of part of suit property on 13.08.2024 after filing of suit has material effect on the rights and obligations of parties; the amendment shall not change the nature of present suit; nor change the cause of action; it shall not cause any prejudice to defendants and that amendments is necessary for proper and just adjudication of controversy and ought to have been allowed.

4. Learned counsel for respondents No.