CMPMO.No. 601/2009. 1.12.2009. Present: Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate, for the Petitioners. Dr. Lalit Sharma, counsel for Respondents No. 3 to 6. As per office report dated 27.11.2009, respondents stand served. However, there is no representation on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 15.9.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Court No. IV Mandi, whereby his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., seeking amendment of the written statement stands dismissed. Smt. Dolma filed a suit impleading eight defendants including Smt. Purnu as defendant No. 5. The suit is for declaration and possession of the suit premises. The present petitioners who are defendants No. 1 to 3 in the suit filed written statement. Issues were framed and the plaintiff’s evidence was partly recorded. At that stage, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the written statement incorporating the plea that Smt. Purnu daughter of Sh. Gandhi (defendant No.5), in fact, had died during the life time of Sh. Gandhi who was born from Smt. Hukmu. Smt.Purnu died when she was just 1 ½ years of age and after her death Smt. Hukmu settled in the house of one Sh. Paras Ram as his wife after taking customary divorce from Sh. Gandhi. The application was resisted by defendant No.5. The court below has dismissed the application primarily on the ground that the amendment would take the opposite party by surprise and also that the trial had begun in the suit. In my view, the amendment application ought to have been allowed. The plaintiff and the applicants were making their respective claims in the suit property. Defendant No.5 is stated to have sold the same. Hence, the title, possession and ownership of the suit premises being an issue the amendment was necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Allowing the application for the amendment at this stage would not cause any irreparable loss or cause prejudice to the respondent. They can be easily compensated with cost. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 15.9.2009 is set aside. The application for amendment is allowed. Amended written statement be filed within a period of four weeks from today. Clients of Dr.Lalit Sharma, learned counsel are entitled for costs quantified Rs.3,000/-. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 24th December, 2009. Considering the controversy involved as also the fact that the suit pertains to the year 2004, the trial court is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year from today. The petition is allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid observations. CMP.No.864/2009. Infructuous. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. December 1, 2009(R)