[2025:RJ-JP:4399] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15769/2023 Prem Devi D/o Ramu @ Ramlal W/o Prahlad Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Pachriya Ki Dhani, Dungarsi Ka Bas, Kishorpura, Tehsil Jhotwara, Jaipur District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner/Plaintiff Versus 1. Rudi Devi W/o Late Sh. Ramu @ Ramlal, R/o Gram Kishorpura, Tehsil Kishangarh Renwal, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Defendant/Respondent 2. Sagarmal S/o Jhutharam, R/o Gram Kishorpura, Tehsil Kishangarh Renwal, District Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Kalyanmal S/o Jhutharam, R/o Gram Kishorpura, Tehsil Kishangarh Renwal, District Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Chhitarmal S/o Jhutharam, R/o Gram Kishorpura, Tehsil Kishangarh Renwal, District Jaipur (Raj.) 5. Deputy Registrar, Office Of Deputy Registrar, Kishangarh Renwal, Tehsil Kishangarh Renwal, District Jaipur (Raj.) 6. Tehsildar, Tehsil Office, Kishangarh Renwal, District Jaipur (Raj.) 7. Punjab National Bank, Branch Karansar Through Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank Branch Karansar, Tehsil Kishangarh Renwal District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Asgar Khan For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 31/01/2025 1. Petitioner-plaintiff has preferred this civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Civil Suit No.37/2019, whereby and whereunder application filed by the defendant No.1 under Order 6 Rule 17 to amend the written statement, has been allowed. 2. Heard counsel for petitioner and perused the record. 3. It appears that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed a civil suit for cancellation of Will, wherein respondent-defendant No.4-Smt. Rudi Devi has filed her written statement on 21.07.2020. Before [2025:RJ-JP:4399] (2 of 2) [CW-15769/2023] commencement of the trial and adducing the evidence by plaintiff, she moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17, seeking to add an additional ground in the written statement that ‘Jaipal has been adopted on 11.12.2019’. The amendment has been allowed by the trial Court vide order impugned, with observation that the proposed amendment is material and relevant to adjudicate the controversy involved in the present suit. 4. This Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has exercised its discretionary power and while allowing the application for amendment, has applied its judicial mind to the controversy involved in the suit and has clearly observed that the proposed amendment is material and relevant to adjudicate the controversy involved. The basic object of Order 6 Rule 17 is to mitigate the litigation and to permit that bonafide amendment in the pleadings, which is necessary to decide the respective claims of parties. The application cannot be said to be hit by the proviso appended to order 6 Rule 17, because the trial has not yet commenced and the application has been filed prior to adducing the evidence by the plaintiff. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error and does not warrant any interference by this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 7. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/18