CR No. 4944 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 4944 of 2009 Date of decision:- 7.10.2010 Gurcharan Singh and another ......petitioners vs. Nirmal Kaur and others ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. D.D.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate for respondents HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Defendants are in revision aggrieved against the order passed by learned trial Court on 23.7.2009 whereby an application filed by defendants to amend the written statement so as to propound the registered Will dated 10.11.2003 was declined. Plaintiff-Nirmal Kaur wife of Gurjant Singh, pre-deceased son of Jangir Singh filed a Civil Suit for declaration challenging the decree dated 26.10.1988 suffered by Jangir Singh in favour of his other sons. During the pendency of the said suit, Jangir Singh died on 13.5.2006. Defendants No. 2 and 3 have sought amendment in the written statement to propound the Will dated 10.11.2003. An application for amendment of the written statement was filed on 25.5.2007. The learned trial Court declined the application for the reasons that it cannot be said the Will propounded was not within the knowledge of defendants No. 2 and 3. CR No. 4944 of 2009 -2- Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be permitted to seek amendment in the written statement. The issue in the suit is whether Jangir Singh has legally suffered decree on 26.10.1988. It is the said question alone which is required to be decided in the suit. The question of inheritance of Jangir Singh is an issue which can be raised and decided in appropriate proceedings but it cannot be made subject matter of the controversy in the present suit which revolves around the decree dated 26.10.1988. In view of the said fact, I do not find any ground is made out for permission to amend the written statement so as to permit the petitioner to raise the contradictory plea that what has been raised in the written statement supporting the decree. Consequently, no case is made out which may warrant interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Revision stands dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 7.10.2010 preeti