IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 451 of 2010. Judgment reserved on: 7.3.2011. Date of Decision: 9.3.2011 Devinder Singh ..Petitioner. Versus Smt.Vidya Devi .. Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Petitioner(s): Mr.Sunil Chauhan, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr.Ajay Kumar, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 30.9.2010 whereby the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rampur allowed the application filed by the defendant seeking permission to amend the written statement. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit that he was the heir of late Sh.Amar Singh and that some property of his father Sh.Amar Singh had been mutated in his name and the name of the defendant who is also the daughter of Sh.Amar Singh. The plaintiff claimed that he is the son of Amar Singh. The defendant, in her written statement, - 2 - claimed that the plaintiff was not the son of Amar Singh but Amar Singh’s brother Bhola Singh. 3. During the course of recording of the evidence of the plaintiff it transpired that Feti Devi was the joint wife of Bhola Singh and Amar Singh. Now the defendant, by means of the application for amendment, wants to plead that Feti Devi was earlier married to Bhola Singh and as per custom Amar Singh also joined her common husband. According to the defendant the plaintiff was born from the loins of Bhola Singh whereas she was born from the loins of Amar Singh. This amendment has been allowed and hence the present petition. 4. One of the objections taken by the plaintiff was that the defendant could have raised this plea in the written statement and there is no explanation why such plea was not raised. The learned Trial Court held that normally a lady has only one husband and therefore the defendant may not have pleaded the facts now sought to be brought on record. 5. In my view, the amendment is not at all necessary for the just decision of the case. The basic issue is whether the plaintiff is the son of Bhola Singh or Amar Singh and Feti Devi has separated from Bhola Singh. The defendant by - 3 - means of this amendment actually wants to plead and chase evidence and this amendment is not necessary for the decision of the main issue arising in the case. The defendant by leading evidence can prove these facts which she wants to bring on record by way of amendment and it is not necessary to amend the written statement. If such facts are sought to be brought on record by way of evidence the plaintiff shall not take the plea that this evidence is beyond the pleadings. 6. In view of the above discussion, I find that the amendment is not necessary. As such, this petition is allowed and the order of the learned trial Court is set- aside. The learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter. No costs. March 9, 2011. (Deepak Gupta), J. PV