Civil Revision No. 5156 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5156 of 2011 Date of Decision: 26.8.2011 Balbir Kaur and Others ...Petitioners Versus Harcharan Singh and Others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 31.5.2011, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala, whereby he had partly rejected the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC moved by the defendants. Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that by way of application for amendment of the written statement, the petitioners/defendants intended to bring the following two facts into notice of the trial for consideration:- 1) That in the written statement, mutation number has been wrongly mentioned as 4663 instead of 4063; And Civil Revision No. 5156 of 2011 2 2) That mutation No. 4663 was recorded on the basis of Will dated 3.6.1988. Therefore, the defendants proposed to raise a preliminary objection that the plaintiffs having pressed and taken benefits of Will dated 3.6.1988 are estopped from relying upon the Will dated 16.7.1990. The trial Court had partly accepted the amendment application and had allowed correction of the mutation number. So far as the prayer of raising preliminary objection is concerned, the same has been rejected on the ground that the defendants have not been diligent and had only moved an application for amendment when the case was fixed for defendants' evidence. In other words, an inference, from the observation of the trial Court, can be safely drawn is that the defendants intended to delay culmination of the suit. With the able assistance rendered by Mr. Bansal, I have perused the written statement (Annexure P3) and in para 4 thereof, on merits, it has been specifically stated as under:- “4...It is further mentioned that during his life time, Bhan Singh, with his own free will and disposing mind, got executed and registered the Will No. 91 dated 3.6.1988...” XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX “...On the basis of Will No. 91 dated 3.6.1988, mutation No. 4063 was entered in open gathering, in the presence of both the parties, on the identification of Lakhvir Singh, Nambardar, regarding inheritance Civil Revision No. 5156 of 2011 3 of late Bhan Singh on the basis of will dated 3.6.1988. The plaintiffs did not submit the so mentioned Will No. 158 dated 16.7.1990 at the time of entering the mutation dated 25.9.1994 or ever before that. Before filing the present suit, i.e. From 3.6.1988 to 25.9.1994, they have not made any mention about Deed No. 156-157-158. Bhan Singh, deceased, was having due love and affection with his son Harbans Singh...” From the perusal of the above portion of the written statement, it is evident that a foundation indeed was laid that the plaintiffs are estopped from relying upon the Will dated 16.7.1990 as they had themselves got the mutations sanctioned on the basis of Will dated 3.6.1988. Therefore, merely raising a preliminary objection is nothing but a tactic to delay the conclusion of the proceedings. In view of the averments made in the written statement, there is no need for repetition by amending the written statement. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 26, 2011 “DK”