C.R. No. 4469 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4469 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.2.2009 Umrao Lal Sharma .. Petitioner v. Madan Lal and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vinod Khunger, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mandeep K. Sajjan, Advocate for the respondents. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioner-plaintiff has approached this Court impugning the order dated 15.5.2008, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur dismissing the application filed by him for amendment of the plaint. Briefly, the fats are that the petitioner and the respondents are closely related, the petitioner being son of respondent No. 1 and brother of respondents No. 2 and 3. The suit was filed for declaration to the effect that the petitioner- plaintiff is owner of 1/9th share of the suit property claiming the same to be ancestral. During the pendency of the suit, an application for amendment of the plaint was filed seeking to amend his share in the property to 1/4th as against 1/9th, earlier claimed. The application having been rejected, the petitioner has approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim made by the petitioner in the amendment application was only with regard to his share in the property which is to be proved in terms of the provisions of law applicable. As there were only four male members in the co-parcenary, the petitioner is entitled to 1/4th share in the ancestral co-parcenary property. Under mistaken advice, initially it was claimed as 1/9th considering the female members also. He further submitted that amendment in the Hindu Succession Act providing right to the daughters in the co-parcenary property was carried out w.e.f. 9.9.2005 and in the present case, the suit was filed prior to that. He further submitted that as in the amended plaint, the right of the female members of the co-parcenary may be C.R. No. 4469 of 2008 [2] affected, he would even implead them as party. The suit is at the initial stage as only the pleadings have been completed and evidence is yet to be led. Accordingly, no delay as such will be there in case the amendment is allowed at this stage. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner should not be permitted to amend the claim made by him in the suit originally filed. The learned court below has rightly held that the legal position shall be considered at the time of final disposal and accordingly, no prejudice as such has been caused to the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Considering the aforesaid facts, where the claim made by the petitioner is primarily based on his right accruing from the provisions of law, I find that no prejudice as such will be caused to the parties in case the prayer for amendment is allowed. However, in case of denial thereof, the case of the petitioner may be prejudiced. Ultimately the share of the parties in the property, which is alleged to be co-parcenary, is to be determined by the court after hearing the parties and in terms of the provisions of law applicable. The petitioner has stated before this court that while filing the amended plaint, he will also implead the female members of the co-parcenary so that their stand is also before the Court at the time of determination of lis with regard to the alleged co-parcenary property. For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.5.2008, passed by the learned court below, is set aside. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 2.2.2009 mk