C.R.No.6878 of 2006. -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6878 of 2006. Decided on July 03, 2009. Sudarshan Singh. ..Petitioner VERSUS Ajit Kaur & others. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT None for the petitioner. M.M.S. BEDI, J, (ORAL) Number of opportunities have been given to the petitioner to implead the legal representatives of Ajit Kaur, respondent No.1, and proforma respondent No.4 Lakhwant Singh. Counsel for the petitioner had not put in appearance even on last date of hearing i.e. March 05, 2009. No steps have been taken to comply with the directions of this court to implead the C.R.No.6878 of 2006. -2 legal representatives of respondent Nos.1 & 4. This revision petition is pending since 2006 against the order dated 06.12.2006, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Kapurthala, whereby the application for amendment of the written statement was allowed after the evidence had been closed by the plaintiffs. While allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, for amendment of written statement, the trial Court had observed that the amendment is of explanatory nature and is essential for the fair decision of the case and it will not change the nature of the defence already taken by the defendants. The petitioner-plaintiff is the son of Sohan Singh. He has filed a suit for declaration that he along with his brothers Mohinder Singh and Lakhwant Singh is owner in possession of land measuring 113 kanals 13 marlas, situated in village Boot, Tehsil and District Kapurthala, besides seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession of the land. The contesting defendants are the sisters as well as the mother of the plaintiffs. The dispute relates to alleged Will by virtue of which Sohan Singh had bequeathed his properties to the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 Ajit Kaur, sister of the petitioner-plaintiff had moved C.R.No.6878 of 2006. -3 an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, to take up a plea that the deceased Sohan Singh had all love and affection equally for his sons and daughter during his lifetime and that he intended that his entire property should be inherited by all his legal heirs in equal share and for that purpose, he had given 21 Kanals 8 Marlas of land to plaintiff No.1, 21 kanals 16 marlas to plaintiff No.2, and 21 kanals 14 marlas, to sons of plaintiff No.3, during his lifetime for cultivation and kept the remaining about 45 kanals 17 marlas with himself. In this way, the plaintiffs were getting share of the produce of the lands given to them during his lifetime, while out of the income of the remaining land, the deceased used to compensate his daughter off and on. The plaintiffs are living in three separate houses as per their shares and remaining share including the share of the defendants remained in possession of the deceased during his lifetime so that the same may be given to his daughter after his death. In these circumstances, there was no occasion for Sohan Singh, to execute any will in favour of the plaintiff alone excluding his wife and daughter who used to look after and serve the deceased during his life time. The main ground raised in the C.R.No.6878 of 2006. -4 revision petition is that the evidence of the plaintiffs has been closed but the amendment petition has been filed merely to delay the proceedings. I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case and I am of the opinion that the initial onus to establish the Will in favour of the plaintiffs is to be discharged by them and the plaintiff-petitioner has to establish that the Will does not suffer from any ambiguity or suspicion. All the suspicious circumstances are to be explained by him. Defendant Ajit Kaur has already denied the execution of the Will but she has merely tried to explain as to how the deceased wanted to distribute his properties. The defence evidence has not been led. In case, the defendant produces any evidence in support of the plea taken by her, it will always be open to the petitioner to rebut the same by leading rebuttal evidence. The details of the issues have not been given by the petitioner. There is no ground made out for interference in the order of amendment passed by the trial Court. While dismissing this petition a clarification is made that in case the defendant leads any evidence regarding the plea taken in her amended written statement, the plaintiffs will be C.R.No.6878 of 2006. -5 given an opportunity to rebut the evidence produced by her in support of her plea taken in the amended petition besides this there are other legal points to impeach the credibility of the witnesses/ evidence produced by her in support of her plea in the written statement/amended written statement. With the above observation, the revision petition is dismissed. The trial court will proceed with the case in accordance with law after taking necessary steps to implead the legal representatives of the deceased defendants, if any application is moved. (M.M.S.Bedi) Judge July 03, 2009. rkarora