C.R. No.5885 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5885 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.9.2010 Pushminder Kaur ……Petitioner VERSUS Ajit Singh ……Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. S.S. Walia, Advocate for the petitioner. 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? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 23.7.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby allowing the amendment application moved by the defen- dant (respondent herein). C.R. No.5885 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 2. Brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff (petitioner herein) filed a suit against her own paternal grandfather seeking maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- per month under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and also claiming half share in the property left by Smt. Kulwant Kaur, deceased, paternal grandmother of the plaintiff/petitioner. Defendant/respondent moved an application seeking amendment in the written statement contending therein that his wife Smt. Kulwant Kaur had executed one Will dated 5.9.1992 in his favour and Will was found on 24.10.2007 which was earlier wrongly mentioned as 24.10.2008. In the application for amendment, defendant/respondent has also pleaded that at the time of filing of the written statement, Will in question was not in his knowledge and Will was discovered at the time of shifting subsequent to the filing of the written statement. Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 23.7.2010, allowed the amendment in the written statement. 3. Mr. S.S. Walia, learned Counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner argued that amendment ought not to have been allowed in view of proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 C.P.C. 4. I do not agree with learned Counsel for the plaintiff/peti- tioner for the simple reason that in the application seeking amend- ment defendant has specifically pleaded that Will in question was not in his knowledge at the time of filing of the written statement and Will was discovered at the time of shifting on 24.10.2007. That being so C.R. No.5885 of 2010 (O&M) -3- amendment seems to have been rightly allowed. No interference is called for. 5. Petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. ( ALOK SINGH ) 14th September, 2010 JUDGE ashish