C.R.No.6728 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6728 of 2008. Decided on August 13, 2009. Jagdev Singh .. Petitioner VERSUS Jagdish Kaur and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Rupinder Kaur Thind, Advocate, for the respondents. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner-defendant has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 11.09.2008, allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, filed by the plaintiff-respondent, for amendment of the plaint in a suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff- respondent. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4, who happen to be the brothers and sisters of plaintiff were owners to the extent of 1/5th share in the . . . 1 C.R.No.6728 of 2008 ancestral land measuring 115 kanals 11 marlas, mentioned in the heading of the plaint. The petitioner-defendant had taken up a plea in the written statement that by virtue of a Will dated 12.09.1977, defendant Nos.1 & 2, have become the exclusive owners of the property left by their father. In the wake of the plea taken in the written statement, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, seeking to amend the plaint to challenge the validity of the Will dated 12.09.1977. The application for amendment has been allowed, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent-plaintiff had acquired knowledge about the Will dated 12.09.1977, after the same had been relied upon by the defendant in the written statement. The main plea raised in the petition challenging the impugned order dated 11.09.2008, is that the existence of the Will had been in the knowledge of the plaintiff-respondent as the plaintiff had challenged the mutation which was entered on the basis of the Will. Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has contended that the plaintiff had not challenged the mutation which was entered on the basis of the Will but it was only on acquiring the knowledge about the mutation having been entered into in the name of defendant No.1 & 2 (defendant No.1, petitioner in present case) that the suit for declaration was filed. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the this case. It has been informed that the parties have started leading evidence as the dispute is amongst the heirs of Hazura Singh. The right of inheritance has to be determined but the same . . . 2 C.R.No.6728 of 2008 cannot be determined without adjudication regarding the Will. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the claim, which is sought to be taken up by way of amendment, is barred by limitation, as such, the amendment could not be allowed. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner- defendant to take the plea of limitation, the amendment sought for seems to be necessary to determine the real question in controversy between the parties. The revision petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that allowing of the amendment will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner-defendant to take the plea of limitation and all other pleas available to challenge the plea taken by the plaintiff- respondent regarding the Will. However, the costs of amendment instead of Rs.200/- will be Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the plaintiff by next date of hearing. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 13, 2009. rka . . . 3