C.R. No. 5374 of 2009 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5374 of 2009 Date of Decision : 08.07.2010 Sham Lal .......... Petitioner Versus Gurdev Kaur & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the respondents **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.7.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Nakodar, vide which application moved by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint stands declined. The plaintiff / petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.6.2002, which was said to have been executed by Teja Singh father of the respondents. As Sh. Teja Singh had expired before the date fixed for execution of the sale deed, suit for specific performance was filed by the petitioner against the legal heirs of deceased Teja Singh. In the written statement, an objection was taken, that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as all the legal C.R. No. 5374 of 2009 -2- ***** heirs of Teja Singh had not been impleaded as party. However, the details of the legal heir left out was not disclosed. It was the case of the petitioner, that on coming to know about the legal heirs of Teja Singh an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved for amendment of the plaint to implead the remaining legal representatives. Application was contested primarily on the ground, that the plaintiff / petitioner could not be allowed to fill up lacuna in the case by impleading additional defendants to defeat the objection taken by the respondent / defendants. The learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground, that the application moved was belated, and can not be allowed at this stage. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended, that the impugned order cannot be sustained as amendment sought was necessary for the proper, complete and just adjudication of the case, as in absence of all the legal heirs of the deceased, it was not possible for the Court to pass a decree in favour of the petitioner. It is also the case of the petitioner, that learned trial Court wrongly took note of the objection taken in the written statement, with regard to the non-joinder of necessary parties, even though no details of the legal heirs were disclosed by the defendant / respondents, therefore, this plea was not available to defendant / respondents, to contest the application for amendment. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the C.R. No. 5374 of 2009 -3- ***** petitioner, that there was no delay in filing the application, as immediately after coming to know about the left out legal heirs of the deceased petitioner filed the application for impleading them as party. The impugned order is supported by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, by contending that that the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the application being belated, as the suit against the left out legal representatives was time barred, therefore, no amendment could be allowed, to implead them as party at this stage. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, that the amendment being belated was rightly declined. It was prayed that the impugned order be not interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. All amendments which are necessary for the Court to effectively decide the case, are to be allowed. It can not be said that the petitioner was in know of all the legal heirs of the deceased. Once names of the left out legal heirs were not disclosed by the defendant / respondents in the written statement, it was not possible for the petitioner to have come to know about them. The application was moved by the petitioner immediately on coming to know about the remaining legal heirs , the application for amendment was thus not belated. The Court while deciding the application for amendment of pleadings was not to go into the merits of the amendment, whether C.R. No. 5374 of 2009 -4- ***** the relief was time barred or not is to be decided at the time of hearing of the case finally i.e. after the parties are allowed to lead evidence. The merits can not be looked into at the stage of deciding the application of amendment. The amendment sought in pleadings should have been allowed, if it is in consonance with the object of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure i.e. the amendment should be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy. The left out legal heirs were necessary parties which should have been allowed to be impleaded as party by amendment. For the reasons stated above, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed. No costs. 08.07.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE