C.R. No. 683 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 683 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.4.2010 ... Kidar Nath ................Petitioner vs. M/s. Mukandi Lal Hem Raj and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. R.P. Kansal, Advocate for the petitioner Sh. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the respondents ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) This is a revision petition against order dated 11.11.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nabha, vide which the application for amendment of application for final decree was declined. Kidar Nath – petitioner filed an application for amendment in the final decree with the allegation that preliminary decree was passed in favour of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 declaring them entitled to 25% share in the firm. Plaintiff No.2 Mukandi Lal has expired during the pendency of the suit and his legal heirs are already on record. C.R. No. 683 of 2009 -2- Plaintiff No.2 was survived by three daughters and 2 sons including the plaintiff no.1. Plaintiff No.1 has further pleaded that he is entitled to get 5% share in addition to his 25% share from the share of deceased Mukandi Lal his father. That application was resisted and ultimately vide impugned order, the application was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the record of the case. So far as the facts of the case are concerned, that are not in dispute. Decree has been passed in which Kedar Nath – petitioner is held entitled to have 25% share. The dispute is in respect of share of Mukandi Lal, father of the petitioner. The trial Court should have decided the fact that who is entitled to the share of Mukandi Lal. However, the amendment in application for final decree is not required. The only controversy which requires to be resolved is who will inherit the property of Mukandi Lal. So, in these circumstances, directions are issued to the trial Court to decide how the share of Mukandi Lal is to be distributed. A copy of the order be conveyed to the trial Court for compliance. ( K.C. Puri ) 1.4.2010 Judge chugh