JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J. 

1. This is a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 11.08.2023 vide which the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC has been allowed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the application filed by respondent-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint has been allowed and by virtue of the same, the respondent has been permitted to raise the plea with respect to the alleged unregistered Will dated 16.03.1994. It is submitted that the said unregistered Will has not seen the light of the day for the past 30 years and apparently a plea on the basis of a false document is now sought to be raised. It is further submitted that in case the said amendment is allowed, the nature of the suit would change and thus, the impugned order vide which the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been allowed deserves to be set aside and the application for amendment of the plaint deserves to be dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that in the present case, it is the respondent-plaintiff who has filed the suit for declaration with respect to residential house measuring 250 square yards and thus, the delay in the proceedings would primarily prejudice the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the admitted owner, to the extent of half share, of the property in question is Rakesh Jain who is the father of the plaintiff as well as petitioner No.2 and the Will in question pertains to the suit property and it was only one week before the filing of the application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC that the plaintiff learnt about the said unregistered Will, which she had found from the old record. It is submitted that the plea with respect to the said unregistered Will is very necessary for the proper and final adjudication of the case and would also help in avoiding multiplicity of litigation. It is submitted that neither the nature of the suit would change nor any prejudice would be caused to the petitioners as they would have a right to file an amended written statement and raise pleas against the said unregistered Will.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book and finds that the impugned order dated 11.08.2023 (Annexure P-1) is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.

5. It is not in dispute that the respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the transfer deed dated 18.06.2019 which was stated to have been executed by the plaintiff along with defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 with respect to residential house measuring 250 square yards. The headnote of the said suit is reproduced hereinbelow:

“Suit for declaration to the effect that the alleged transfer deed no.2786 dated 18.6.2019 allegedly executed by the plaintiff alongwith defendant no.2 in favour of the defendant no.1 regarding the transfer of ownership of their 2/6 share in the residential house measuring 250 sq.yds. which comes out to 83.33 sq.yds., bearing M.C. No. 21836, New UID NO. MCB-22/04720, comprising in khewat no.6, khatauni no.149 bearing khasra nos. 2514 min (0-5) as per jamabandi for the year 2012-13, which is abounded as under:-

East: 30’ Street 20’ wide

West: 30’ House of Bhandari;

North: 75’ Darshna Rani w/o Dinesh Kumar;

South: 75’ Ramesh Kumar Sharma;

Situated in Street NO.4, Shiv Mandir Wali Gali, Power House Road, Bathinda, is totally wrong, illegal, null and void, result of fraud committed by the defendants no.1 & 2 without any consideration, without delivery of possession, result of mis-representation of facts t