IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 320 of 2009 Reserved on.: 25.08.2010 Date of decision: 22.09.2010 Fateh Chand Petitioner. Versus Hari Singh and others Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. K.D.Sood, Advocate. No.1, 3 to 7 & 10 to 13. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 20.2.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.2, Paonta Sahib whereby she allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Order 6 Rule 17 filed by the plaintiffs. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs who are the grand children of late Shri Dhannu filed a suit against the defendant, who is also a grand son of Dhannu. In this suit it was alleged that the defendant Fateh Chand, who was a grand son of Dhannu, had wrongly shown himself to be son of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes. 2 Dhannu and got the land of Dhannu mutated in his favour. The plaintiffs prayed that a decree for declaration be passed that the plaintiffs and the defendant are joint owner in possession of the suit land and the revenue entry showing the defendant to be sole owner of the said land are collusive, fraudulent and liable to be set-aside. 3. This suit was contested by the defendant. In the written statement it was pleaded that Shri Shankar father of some of the plaintiffs and the defendant had lived with one other woman Smt. Shakhri and from her loins also some children were born. According to the defendant, in a family arrangement, which took place in the year 1939-40, Shri Dhannu had given the suit land to the defendant. Defendant claims to be owner of the suit land in his individual capacity on the basis of such family settlement/arrangement. The defendant alongwith written statement also filed a counter claim seeking possession of some land which was in the possession of the plaintiffs No. 3 to 8 and also for mesne profits. 4. The plaintiffs filed this application for amendment of the plaint. By means of this application the plaintiffs wanted to change para No.2 of the plaint. Now, the plaintiffs want to aver that late Shri Shankar, father of the some of the plaintiffs had developed some illicit 3 relations with the widow of his cousin and out of this illicit relations four sons were born and these four sons were sought to be impleaded as parties to the suit and suit was also sought to be amended. This application has been allowed by the learned trial Court and hence this petition. 5. Shri Bimal Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has strenuously contended that the learned trial Court should not have allowed the application. He submits that the plaintiffs are taking a totally inconsistent stand and had earlier not made a mention about those persons now sought to be added as defendants. According to him, this application has only been filed to delay the proceedings. On the other hand Shri K.D.Sood, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order of the learned Court below. 6. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties. No doubt, the plaintiffs have changed their stand and earlier they had made no mention that Shankar had entered into some relations with a lady and there were children born out of such relationship. However, it cannot be said that the amendment which is sought to be made is going to change the nature of the suit. The plaintiffs’ suit still is that the land is jointly owned by heirs of Shri Dhannu. The stand of the defendant 4 continues to be that by family arrangement he is the sole owner of the suit land. In case the plea of the plaintiffs is accepted then the children of Shankar even from the second wife or an illicit relationship would have a right in the property. Therefore, they are proper parties to the proceedings. In my view, the learned Court below has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the order calling for interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. It is, however, made clear that any observations made by me in this order have been made only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not in any manner affect the decision of the main suit. 7. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 28th October, 2010. 22nd September, 2010 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™