CR No. 6252 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6252 of 2009 Date of decision:- 3.8.2010 Krishan Goenka ......petitioner vs. Jayanti Parkash Goenka & ors ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) The plaintiff-petitioner is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court on 28.7.2009, declining the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint so as to incorporate the challenge to the family settlement reduced in writing on 29.12.1995. The parties are legal heirs of Nand Kishore Goenka. The plaintiff-petitioner claimed inheritance by way of succession whereas the defendant is relying upon the Will dated 20.12.1997. In the said suit, the defendant filed a written statement and apart from relying upon the aforesaid Will already propounded, the defendant also relied family settlement reduced in writing on 29.12.1995. The CR No. 6252 of 2009 -2- plaintiff has sought to amend the plaint to challenge the said family settlement dated 29.12.1995 though it is pointed out that the plaintiff made a grievance in respect of an agreement of the Year 1995 as forged and fabricated document. The learned trial Court declined the application for amendment primarily for the reason that the plaintiff has availed one opportunity to lead evidence. Even if no evidence has been led by the plaintiff; but it will amount to the commencement of the trial and thus plaintiff is not entitled to amendment. It was also found that the plaintiffs were in the knowledge of the aforesaid settlement and thus the amendment sought is not tenable. A perusal of the record shows that the issues were framed on 16.2.2005, but no evidence was led by the plaintiff when the application for amendment was filed on 26.5.2008. The plaintiff has already pleaded the factum of the agreement executed in the Year 1995, as the result of fraud and misrepresentation. In fact, the plainfiff has sought to clarify the fact already stated in the plaint. The defendant is not likely to suffer any prejudice as he is in possession of the suit property. Therefore delay if any, on account of the amendment would be peril of the plaintiffs alone. The amendment sought for will facilitate proper adjudication of all the issues between the parties. Therefore, it is in the interest of justice, if the plaintiffs are permitted to amend the plaint so as to incorporate a specific challenge to the family CR No. 6252 of 2009 -3- settlement reduced in writing on 29.12.1995. Consequently, the order passed by the trial Court is set aside. The plaintiff-petitioner is permitted to amend their plaint as prayed for. Disposed of, as such. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 3.8.2010 preeti