IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 3636 of 2007. Date of Decision: 5th February, 2008... Gurdip Kaur & Ors. Petitioners through Mr. K.S.Boparai, Advocate Versus Nasib Kaur & Ors. ...Respondents through Mr. R.K.Shukla, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. G.S.Punia, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10th February, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC moved by the petitioners for amendment of the plaint, has been dismissed, after observing that in the light of the provisions contained in the amended CPC and the fact that the trial has already commenced and the case is at the stage of plaintiff evidence, the proposed amendment can not be allowed. The petitioners are four minor daughters and widow of Baldev Singh. They have filed the present suit in forma-pauperis for the grant of a decree for maintenance under the provisions of the Civil Revision No. 3636 of 2007. ::-2-:: Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. At the time of filing of the suit, the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioners No. 2 to 4 was alive. He, however, died during the pendency of the suit. On a perusal of the plaint, as it exists prior to the proposed amendment, it is apparent that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was owner in possession of land measuring 40 kanals 6 marlas which he, however, sold by way of different sale deeds most of which were executed in the year 1989-90 in favour of none else than the wife of his own brother and some other residents of the village. The petitioners-plaintiffs have already specifically averred in para no. 5 of the plaint that “the sale deeds dated 25.5.90, 23.11.90, 15.5.85, 24.11.89, 11.8.89 and 4.5.90 are liable to be set aside”. However, in the relief clause, no such specific declaration was sought by them. In their amendment application, the petitioners/plaintiffs have sought incorporation of the declaratory relief for setting aside of the afore- stated sale deeds and/or declaring the same to be not binding on them. The petitioners have specifically averred in the plaint that their predecessor-in-interest (Baldev Singh) had refused to maintain them and had turned them out of the house after mal-treating. It has also been averred by them that they are presently residing with the brother of petitioner No.. 1, i.e. Maternal uncle of petitioners No. 2 to 4. In these circumstances, more so when a part of the land appears to have been transferred by the deceased Baldev Singh in favour of Civil Revision No. 3636 of 2007. ::-3-:: his own family members in a clandestine manner, it would be too presumptive to believe that these sale transactions were in the knowledge of the petitioners at the time of filing of the suit. Learned trial Court, therefore, ought not to have drawn such an extreme inference that the petitioners' claim is time barred at this stage. Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.2.2007 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and the petitioners are permitted to file their amended plaint for which only one opportunity shall be granted to them. Since the suit has been filed in forma-pauperis, no costs are being imposed upon the petitioners. Needless to say that the respondent/defendants would be entitled to take all legal/factual objections in their written statement to the amended plaint and the same shall be gone into by the learned trial Court, in accordance with law. Disposed of. February 05, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE