Civil Revision No.4276 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4276 of 2003 Date of Order: 28.02.2011 Rattan Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus Prem Lata and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present:Dr. Parveen Hans, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the respondents. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioners impugn an order dated 28.08.2003, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi, rejecting the petitioners application for amendment of the written statement. Counsel for the petitioners submits that amendment of pleadings for incorporation of subsequent events/facts, is generally allowed. The petitioners father, who was arrayed as defendant no.3, passed away on 30.01.2000. The petitioners were aware that he had executed a will dated 08.08.1995, as it is so pleaded in the written statement filed by him, but they were not aware of the beneficiaries of the will. The petitioners father passed away on 30.01.2000, bringing the will into operation. Civil Revision No.4276 of 2003 -2- The petitioners found the will in a box on 25.08.2001 and immediately filed an application for amendment of the written statement on 04.10.2001. The averment in the application that the petitioners were not aware of the will has to be read in the context of the beneficiaries of the will or an inadvertent error. It is further argued that as the will dated 08.08.1995 came into effect on the demise of respondent no.3 on 30.01.2000, the petitioners prayer for amendment of the written statement, should have been allowed. Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that averments in the application that the petitioners were not aware of this will are factually incorrect as the will is specifically referred to in the written statement, filed by defendant no.3. The trial Court rightly dismissed the application by holding that petitioners have made a false averment that they were not aware of the execution of the will. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Shri Kurda Ram, father of the petitioners, filed a written statement, averring that he has executed a will dated 08.08.1995. Kurda Ram, however, did not disclose the names of beneficiaries of the will. Shri Kurda Ram, passed away on 30.01.2000. The will dated 08.08.1995 came into effect on 30.01.2000. The petitioners claim that they found the will in a box on 25.08.2001 and filed an application, on 04.10.2001, for Civil Revision No.4276 of 2003 -3- amendment of the written statement to incorporate a plea with respect to the will. The trial court has dismissed the application on the ground that as will is referred to in the written statement filed by Kurda Ram, it cannot be said to be a subsequent event. The finding recorded by the trial court, to say the least is perverse. The will dated 08.08.1995, though referred to in the written statement filed by Kurda Ram came into effect on 30.01.2000, during the pendency of the suit. The devolution of interest, pursuant to the will, is, therefore, a subsequent event. The fact that the petitioners denied knowledge of the will, in their application for amendment, can be attributed to be an error in the pleadings and should have, therefore, been ignored. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the revision is allowed, the order dated 28.08.2003 is set aside, the application for amendment is allowed and liberty is granted to the petitioners to file an amended written statement. The trial Court shall make every endeavour to decide the suit, within one year. Parties are directed to appear before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi, on 08.04.2011. February 28, 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE