IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.278 of 2010 Date of decision : October 5, 2010 Surjit Singh and another …Petitioners. Versus Hari Singh and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent : None. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Nobody appears for the respondents, despite service. 2. Heard. 3. A suit has been filed by the petitioners, under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, challenging sale of certain property by respondent No.2, their brother, in favour of respondent No.1. It is alleged that the property sold by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 had been inherited by respondent No.2 from their father and as such they have a preferential right to purchase the same, in view of the provision of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. They have filed a suit for possession. During the pendency of the suit, they filed an application for amendment of the plaint so as to seek relief of declaration, in addition to that Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… of possession. That application has been dismissed, on the ground that in the application it is not alleged that the relief could not be incorporated in the original plaint, despite exercise of due diligence. Relief sought to be added is only of formal nature. Relief of possession has already been sought. Now, the plaintiffs-petitioners want to add the relief of declaration. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application. Consequently, the present petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the application filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners is allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/-. Petition stands disposed of. October 5, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J