CR No. 1012 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 1012 of 2010 Date of decision:- 20.7.2010 Ajit Singh and another ......petitioners vs. Kuldeep Kaur and others ......respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Karanjit Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 1, 3, 4 and 5. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) The challenge in the present petition is to the Order passed by the learned trial Court on 25.1.2010, whereby an application filed by defendants No. 1 to 4 to amend the written statement so as to propound Will dated 20.1.2000 was dismissed. The dispute pertains to the estate of Kehar Singh-deceased. Plaintiff-Respondent No.1 is the widow of Kehar Singh whereas defendants No. 1 to 4 are sons of Kehar Singh whereas defendants No. 5 to 6 are daughters of Kehar Singh. The plaintiff propounded the registered Will dated 14.1.1999 in the suit for declaration. The defendants alleged that the Will propounded by the plaintiff is forged and fabricated. After the framing of the issues and conclusion of evidence of plaintiffs, the defendants were called upon to lead their evidence. At that stage, an application for amendment in the written statement was filed by defendants No. 1 to 4 so as to incorporate execution of unregistered Will dated 20.1.2000 by Kehar CR No. 1012 of 2010 -2- Singh in their favour. The said application has been declined by the learned trial Court. It has been found by the learned trial Court that issues were framed on 21.7.2004. The plaintiff concluded the evidence on 21.3.2009 and case was adjourned for defendants evidence on 17.11.2009. On the said date, the defendants were directed to lead their entire evidence on 1.12.2009. On 1.12.2009, the learned counsel for defendant made a statement that the entire evidence shall be concluded on 8.12.2009. It was on the said date, an application has been filed for amendment of the written statement to the propound Will dated 20.1.2000. The order passed by learned trial Court cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity. Not only, that defendants have sought to amend the written statement after the trial has commenced but also the fact that the Will allegedly propounded is unregistered Will and has not been asserted in a suit during its pendency of more than 6 years. It is sufficient to conclude that the stand of the defendants is not true. Consequently, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court. This revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. Such costs tendered by the petitioner vide two demand drafts Nos. 159768 and 159769 dated 26.2.2010 be disbursed to respondents No.4 and 5, as cost of the revision petition. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 20.7.2010 preeti