C.R. No.5158 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5158 of 2010 Date of Decision: 17.08.2010 Charanjeet Kaur and others .……Petitioners Versus Smt. Dalip Kaur and another ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate for the petitioners. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiffs have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 03.08.2010 Annexure P-4 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abhor thereby dismissing plaintiffs' application for amendment of plaint. Kuldip Singh was son of defendant-respondent No.1 and brother of defendant No.2. Kuldip Singh has since died. Plaintiffs are widow, minor daughter and minor son of Kuldip Singh. Plaintiffs have filed suit seeking permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1 from transferring her land in favour of her daughter defendant No.2. By amendment of plaint, plaintiffs want to plead that defendant No.1 has executed registered Will dated 23.02.2004 in favour of plaintiff No.3 and in view thereof, plaintiff No.3 (wrongly mentioned as plaintiff No.2) has every right in the suit property and defendant No.1 has no right to transfer the suit property to any other person except plaintiff No.3. Learned trial Court has dismissed the plaintiffs' C.R. No.5158 of 2010 -2- application for amendment of plaint vide impugned order Annexure P-4. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have preferred the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that defendant-respondent No.1 voluntarily executed registered Will dated 23.02.2004 in favour of plaintiffs, but inadvertently the said Will could not be pleaded in the plaint and is now required to be pleaded. The contention cannot be accepted. Defendant No.1 testatrix is still alive. Consequently, during the life time of the defendant No.1, the Will allegedly executed by her does not confer any right, title or interest on plaintiff No.3 in the suit property owned by defendant No.1. Consequently, the proposed amendment of plaint cannot be allowed because the same is irrelevant. On the basis of the alleged Will, plaintiff No.3 cannot claim any right, title or interest in the suit land during the life time of defendant No.1 nor on the basis of the said Will, defendant No.1 can be injuncted from transferring the suit land to anybody else. The proposed amendment is thus completely irrelevant and, therefore, cannot be allowed. In view of aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition, although for different reasons than assigned by the trial Court. The instant revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 17.08.2010 A. Kaundal