C.R.7041 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R.7041 of 2008 Date of decision:- 10.11.2009 Smt. Chandermani Sharma petitioner vs Smt. Meeranji Sharma and others Respondent Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for Mr. DP Gupta, Advocate Mr. RS Bains, Advocate. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.S.BEDI,J. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against order dated 13.5.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Sr.D.) Chandigarh dismissing the application of defendant No.1- petitioner for amendment of the written statement, filed by her to incorporate the plea that Deepak Sharma had executed a Will in her favour, bequeathing his entire property. The petitioner wants to amend the preliminary objections 5 to 7 of the written statement. The trial court, relying upon the proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC providing that no amendment shall be allowed after the commencement of the trial, has dismissed the application. The amendment of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC came into operation w.e.f. 1.7.2002 by (Amendment Act 22 of 2002), whereas the suit had been filed by smt. Krishna Shama plaintiff ( now deceased) in the year 2000, as such the amendment will be applicable to the cases, which have been filed after the enforcement of the Amending Act. Even otherwise, under the amended Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, an amendment can be allowed, if it is C.R.7041 of 2008 2 necessary for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the parties. In the present case, the suit had been filed by smt. Krishan Sharma, mother of deceased Deepak Sharma, for partition of the property in dispute i.e. H.No.1565, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh. Defendants 3 and 4 had been impleaded as defendants in the case, being the children of deceased Deepak Sharma from his first wife. Since the rights and title of all the parties are necessary to be determined for partition of the house in dispute, it will be expedient in the interest of justice in case all the parties are permitted to put forth their right, title or interest so that the right of each of the party in the property in dispute could be finally determined once for all. No doubt slight delay will be caused but that will prevent the multiplicity of litigation in future. In view of the above circumstances, impugned order dated 13.5.2008 is not sustainable. The revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 13.5.2008 is hereby set aside. The trial court is directed to allow the application for amendment of the written statement, filed by the defendant- petitioner, in accordance with the procedure of law. It is further directed that since the matter is pending since the year 2000, the suit may be decided within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. November 10 ,2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) TSM JUDGE