C.R. No.4079 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.4079 of 2009 Date of Decision: 29.07.2009 Murti Devi ...Appellant VERSUS Amarjit Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. *** AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed against the rejection of an application under Order 6 Rule 17 to amend the plaint. The petitioner had filed a suit against the respondents claiming that she alone was entitled to inherit the property of her husband and that the respondents had no connection with the same. In written statement, the plea of the respondents was that in fact the petitioner was not able to bear any children and that is why with her consent her husband had taken the respondent No.1 as a wife and respondent No.1 had produced two children from the loins of the husband of the petitioner. It is not disputed that litigation has been going on between the parties from the past five years. After this petitioner moved an application for amendment of the plaint pleading that her brother 'had latestly' now disclosed to her that in fact he was the father of the two children of respondent No.1. It is this plea which has been rejected by the learned trial court. C.R. No.4079 of 2009 -2- In the first place, it would be seen that this plea not only prejudicially effect the respondent No.1, it even brings into doubt the paternity of respondents No.2 and 3 and that too in a manner which is scandalous. Secondly, it is inconceivable that the brother of the petitioner would disclose this seminal fact to her five years after litigation between the parties had erupted. Thirdly, the positive case of the petitioner in her plaint was that her husband was medically incapable of having children. If that is so, this plea, that actually it is the brother of the petitioner who had fathered the children is redundant. Fourthly, when the matter originally came up for hearing I put it to learned counsel that if the said brother of the petitioner, who so confidently asserted his fatherhood was ready to bear the maintenance expenses of the said children. Unfortunately, he has denied the same. In the circumstances, I am constrained to hold that there is no material illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. No costs. As the main case has been disposed of therefore all the pending civil miscellaneous applications in the case also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 29, 2009 JUDGE ashish