JUDGEMENT

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

I.A. 19310/2022 (u/O VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908)

1. By way of present application, under Or. VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC, 1908”), the applicant/petitioners seek amendment of the Probate Petition.

2. It is submitted that the present Probate Petition for grant of Probate of the Will dated 29.09.1993 of Smt. Kuldip Charanjit Singh, was filed by the petitioner No. 1 Mr. Amarjit Singh Puri (deceased), the erstwhile petitioner, who was the named sole Executor in the Will dated 29.09.1993.

3. The petitioner No. 2 Anoop Singh and petitioner No. 3 Digvijai Singh were also impleaded being the beneficiaries/legatees under the Will and being the grandsons of the Testatrix. The petitioner No. 4 Romila Singh was the daughter of the Testatrix and has been impleaded as a petitioner, since she had admitted the execution of the Will dated 29.09.1993.

4. It is submitted that petitioner No. 1 Amarjit Singh Puri had died on 20.11.2013. Upon his death, the Application No. I.A. 820/2014 under Order XXII Rule 3 of the CPC, 1908 was filed for deletion of the name of deceased petitioner No. 1Amarjit Singh Puri (Executor) from the array of parties and for continuation of the petition by the other petitioners who are the beneficiaries. This Application was allowed vide Order dated 18.01.2014 as the same was not opposed by the respondents. The Amended Memo of Parties dated 15.01.2014 was taken on record.

5. It is further submitted that the petitioner No. 2Anoop Singh had also died on 02.12.2011 and the Application No. 3724/2012 under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC, 1908 was filed which was allowed vide Order dated 21.08.2012. The petitioner No. 2 Anoop Singh was unmarried and had left the Will dated 02.11.2011 by which he bequeathed his entire estate in favour of his brother petitioner No. 3 Digvijai Singh.

6. Thus, after the demise of the sole Executor, the petition was continued by the beneficiaries as mentioned above and the evidence was recorded and concluded. The matter is now at the stage of final arguments.

7. It is submitted that in order to obviate any technical objections and pursuant to the Order dated 05.09.2022, the petitioner seeks amendment in the cause title to read as a Petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of Letter of Administration with the Will annexed in respect of the Will dated 29.09.1993 of Late Smt. Kuldip Charanjit Singh and to make consequential amendment in Paragraph-10 and the prayer clause to claim Relief of Letter of Administration with Will annexed in place of prayer for Probate.

8. It is submitted that the amendments have been necessitated because of the demise of the sole Executor named in the Will and Petition was allowed to be continued by the beneficiaries. The amendment does not, in any manner, change the cause of action or the nature of proceedings and are necessary for the effective adjudication of the present petition. The prayer is made that the amendment may consequently be allowed.

9. The Learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioner has relied upon A.K. Gupta and Sons vs. Damodar Valley Corporation, AIR 1967 SC 96, Vijay Agarwal and Ors.vs. Harinarayan G.

Bajaj and Ors.

MANU/MH/0885/2013, Preethi Swaminathan vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

MANU/DE/2526/2018, Pawan Puri vs.

The State MANU/DE/3515/2022, Prem Prakash Dabral vs. State and Ors. MANU/DE/1654/2019, Simrit Singh vs. State of Delhi and Ors. MANU/DE/2796/2012, in support of his arguments.

10. The respondent No. 2/Kanwal Chaudri and the respondent No. 3 Karanraj, in their Reply to the present application have asserted that the present application is totally misconceived and demonstrates a complete lack of bona fide on the part of the applicants/petitioners. Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 clearly specifies that the probate can be granted only to an Executor