C.R.No.6280 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6280 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.10.2011 Sahab Kaur ....Petitioner Versus Panmeshwari and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J C.M.No.25453-C of 2011 Application is allowed. Annexures P.4 to P.7 are taken on record and exemption from filing certified copies of the same is granted. C.R.No.6280 of 2011 By filing the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, plaintiff-petitioner has laid challenge to the impugned order dated 11.8.2011 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Charkhi Dadri whereby application filed by the defendants- respondents for amendment of the written statement has been allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.2000/-. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a Civil Suit No.RBT 631 dated 23.12.2002 for declaration to the effect C.R.No.6280 of 2011 #2# that the plaintiff and defendant/proforma respondent No.10 are owner in possession of 7 kanal 3 marla (1-6th share) in total land measuring 42 kanal 17 marla in the land described in the head note of the plaint. Defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. During the pendency of the suit, an application for amendment of the written statement was filed by defendant-respondent No.1. Upon notice, the same was opposed. After hearing both the sides, the application was allowed by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order dated 11.8.2011 subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as costs, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner argues that the suit was filed in the year 2002 and the trial is at the final stage and at this juncture, application for amendment of written statement has been moved just to prolong the civil suit. It is further argued that the amendment will change the whole case as the defendant-respondent No.1 is trying to withdraw the admission made by her, which is not permissible in law at such a belated stage. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same deserves dismissal. A perusal of paper book reveals that the dispute is regarding the inheritance of property left behind by Chandgi son of Gopal resident of Village Khatiwas, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani. Said Chandgi has two sons, namely, Ram Singh and Kartar C.R.No.6280 of 2011 #3# Singh (both since deceased) and two daughters named Sahab Kaur- petitioner (plaintiff) and Sushila-proforma defendant/respondent No.10. Defendant-respondent No.1 is the widow of said deceased Ram Singh and defendant-respondent No.9 is the widow of said deceased Kartar Singh whereas rest of the defendants-respondents are also from the same family being grand-sons, grand-daughters of said Chandgi. A perusal of the application dated 30.5.2011 (P.2) for amendment filed on behalf of defendant-respondent No.1 reveals that only before two-three days from filing of this application, when she (respondent No.1) went to one Kamal Singh son of Gokal resident of Khatiwas in connection with the evidence at his residence, who told her that when he was searching some documents of his father, he found the will dated 2.3.1974 executed by Chandgi Ram son of Gopal son of Amrit, resident of Khatiwas, which is in favour of both of his sons, namely, Ram Singh and Kartar Singh and along with that, he has also found an affidavit dated 6.6.1974 of Hardan son of Tota Ram, who was Sarpanch of the village at that time and the same was attested by Sh. Dhan Singh, Advocate-cum-Oath Commissioner. It is further stated in the application that the abovesaid will of Chandgi Ram was handed over to defendant-respondent No.1 by said Kamal Singh and she came to know about the will for the first time, therefore, she wanted to make the amendment in para No.1 of the written statement to that effect. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to reproduce the observation recorded by the learned trial Court in para 6 C.R.No.6280 of 2011 #4# of its impugned order, which reads thus: “6. No doubt prior to filing of the application in hand, the case was fixed for leading evidence of defendant/applicant. It is also correct that the application under adjudication was filed after taking a considerable time by the applicant/defendant to lead her evidence. However, it is equally true on the other hand that the factum of knowledge about the documents alleged in the application had come in the knowledge of the applicant immediately prior to filing of the application. This fact reflects that the factum of Will dated 2.3.1974 as well as of affidavit dated 6.6.1974 of Hardhan have come in the knowledge of the applicant for the first time immediately prior to filing of the application. It is, thus, clear that the factum of existence of the said Will as well as affidavit mentioned in the application were not known to the applicant earlier. Further, the application of the applicant is duly supported with an attested affidavit. This fact also proves about the factum of knowledge about the documents with the applicant.” A perusal of the abovesaid observations clearly reveal that the will is dated 2.3.1974 and the affidavit is dated 6.6.1974 duly attested by an Oath Commissioner being the documents more than thirty years old and the proposed amendment is sought on the basis of these documents, which were not in the knowledge of the applicant- defendant No.1 at the time of filing the written statement. Moreover, the plaintiff-petitioner has already been compensated by way of costs. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court while allowing the application for amendment C.R.No.6280 of 2011 #5# of written statement of respondent No.1. However, it is made clear that the observations made above will not be construed to be an expression of opinion on merit of the case regarding the genuineness of the Will dated 2.3.1974 and affidavit dated 6.6.1974 as referred above. Dismissed. October 20, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE