IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.03.2026 Sukhraj Kaur ...Pe((oner Versus Manjinder Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the pe((oner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Pe((oner herein is one of the plain(ffs in Civil Suit bearing CS-

159 of 2017 (tled Manpreet Singh and others versus Manjinder Kaur and others, pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tarn Taran. The pe((oner has approached this Court being aggrieved of the order dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure P-8), passed by the learned trial Court, whereby an applica(on filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of the plaint has been declined.

2. A perusal of the record shows that the plain(ffs ins(tuted the aforesaid suit seeking a decree of declara(on to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit property on the basis of natural succession, along with the consequen(al relief of permanent injunc(on restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession. It was pleaded that plain(ff No.1 was the adopted son of deceased Bachan Singh and plain(ff No.2.

3. The defendants contested the suit by filing wriBen statement, primarily relying upon a registered Will dated 12.04.2006 allegedly executed by deceased Bachan Singh in favour of defendant No.1.

4. Upon comple(on of pleadings, necessary issues were framed and the onus to prove the Will was rightly placed upon the defendants being the propounders thereof.

5. Learned counsel for the pe((oner does not dispute that both the par(es have already concluded their respec(ve evidence and presently the case stands fixed for rebuBal evidence/arguments.

6. Learned counsel for the pe((oner submits that during the course of evidence led by the defendants, the plain(ffs came to know that the Will propounded by the defendants was the result of fraud and forgery allegedly commiBed by one of the defendant Beant Singh. On that basis, the pe((oner sought amendment of the plaint in order to incorporate a specific plea challenging the Will on the ground of fraud and forgery. It is argued that the proposed amendment was merely explanatory in nature and did not change the nature of the suit and therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the amendment in the interest of jus(ce.

7. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the pe((oner and has perused the impugned order as well as the material available on record.

8. It is not in dispute that the suit was ins(tuted in the year 2017 and has already remained pending for more than eight years. The wriBen statement filed by the defendants specifically relied upon the registered Will dated 12.04.2006 executed by deceased Bachan Singh. In the plaint itself, the plain(ffs had taken a categorical stand that Bachan Singh had not executed any Will during his life(me and that even if any such document was alleged to have been executed, the same would not bind the plain(ffs. Even in the replica(on filed thereaHer, the execu(on of the Will was specifically denied.

9. Thus, the plea sought to be introduced by way of amendment essen(ally relates to the validity of the same Will, which has been the founda(on of the defence right from the incep(on of the suit. The plain(ffs were therefore fully aware of the stand taken by the defendants since the filing of the wriBen statement. Despite that, no such plea was taken for several years during the pendency of the trial.

10. It is also significant that the applica(on for amendment has been moved aHer commencement of the trial and aHer the par(es have already concluded their evidence. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC clearly s(pulates that once the trial has commenced, an amendment cannot be permiBed unless the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence the party could not have raised the maBer before the commencement of trial. In the present case,