Amendments to suit regarding cause of action are valid post-death of a testator, as claims regarding a Will are legally illogical during the testator's lifetime.

JUDGMENT :

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for setting aside the impugned order dated 09.09.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, for amendment of the suit only qua cause of action has been dismissed.

2. It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner/plaintiffs have instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents No. 1 to 3 herein, on dated 30.11.2023 (Annexure P-1). Defendant/respondents No. 1 and 2 have appeared in the suit and filed their written statement on 02.03.2024 (Annexure P-2). Defendant No. 3 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 03.12.2025 (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel submits that issues are yet to be framed by the learned trial Court. The petitioner/ plaintiffs have moved the present application dated 05.07.2025 (Annexure P-4) seeking formal amendment in the suit in respect of cause of action. It is submitted that the suit has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiffs claiming natural succession whereas the defendants were claiming title over the suit property on the basis of alleged Will dated 31.07.2020 executed by Nasib Kaur mother of the petitioner/plaintiffs, who had expired on 16.10.2023. It is submitted that petitioners are only seeking a formal amendment in respect of the cause of action by stating that the cause of action will start from the date of death of Nasib Kaur i.e. 16.10.2023 and not from the date of execution of the alleged Will i.e. 31.07.2020 which has yet to be proved in accordance with law. Learned counsel submits that the next date before the learned trial Court is 19.12.2025.

3. In support, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Shanti Swaroop Deceased and others vs. Onkar Prasad Deceased and others , 2023(4) Civil Court Cases 262: wherein in para 12 of the judgment following substantial question of law was framed:-

“Whether Original Suit No. 13 of 1978 for cancellation of Will dated 05.08.1972 was barred by limitation in the light of Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963?”

4. Further, in para Nos. 34 and 35 of the aforsaid, it was held as under:-

“34. In 1902, a suit was instituted in a Civil Court within the jurisdiction of Allahabad High Court for cancellation of a Will during the life time of the testator. A Division Bench of this Court in Rambhajan Kunwar & Ors. Vs. Gurcharan Kunwar reported in 1905 ILR 27 (Allahabad Series) 14 referred the suit as a ridiculous one. The observations of the Division Bench of this Court are reproduced herein below:-

“The suit of from which this appeal has arisen is a ridiculous one. It is brought by the plaintiff to have a will of the defendant no. 1, a living person, cancelled. In the written statement the defendants pointed attention to the fact that a suit claiming such relief could not be maintained. The will of a living man does not come into operation when it has been executed, but only upon his death. So long as a testator is living he may at any moment cancel his will and make a totally different disposition of his property. This power he possesses up to the hour of his death, provided he be competent then to execute a valid will. It is idle to contend that a party can come into Court and successfully claim to have the will of a living person set aside. Unfortunately the learned Subordinate Judge was of a different opinion. In his judgment he finds that a suit for cancellation of a will may be maintained. In this we a