CR-3427-2025 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-3427-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.09.2025 Santosh Devi and another ...Pe$$oners Versus Aatamparkash Through His LRs and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Sourabh Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Neeraj Sansaniwal, Advocate for the respondent. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. Pe$$oners herein are defendants No.4 and 7 in civil suit bearing CIS No.CS-423-2021 $tled as ‘Aatam Parkash Vs. Geeta Devi and others’ and are aggrieved by the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mohindergarh whereby an applica$on filed by them under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the wri=en statement has been declined. 2. It is contended by learned counsel that as per the ini$al stand taken by the pe$$oners-defendant No.4 and 7, it was pleaded that as per will dated 10.07.1998 of Sant Lal, owner of the Haveli in dispute is defendant No.6-Krishna and all the defendants are owners in equal share of the plot situated at Baluna and that Sant Lal, father of par$es had expired on 19.12.2014. By way of the proposed amendment, defendants wanted to plead that in fact Santlal son of Mo$lal i.e. father of the defendant had leC a Will No.165 dated 10.07.1998, in which Sant Lal had made a reference of two plots, out of which one plot is situated at Mohalla Baluna measuring 108 sq. yards and second plot is situated at Mohalla Fatehpuria, Mahendergarh. As per the Will, Shan$ Devi was to be owner of the plot Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.10 18:18 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-3427-2025 (O&M) [2] situated at Mohalla Baluna Thus, Shan$ Devi became owner in possession. However, said Shan$ Devi executed a Will dated 04.03.2021 in favour of her grandson namely Lincon Sharma. 3. The aforesaid amendment sought by the pe$$oners has been declined by the trial Court on the ground that pe$$oners were not diligent enough so as to move the applica$on and that the issues had already been se=led. 4. Assailing the order, learned counsel submits that though the issues had been se=led but at the $me, when the applica$on was moved, not even a single witness had been examined by the plain$ff-respondent. Learned counsel further submits that proposed amendment so as to introduce the Will dated 04.03.2021 of Smt. Shan$ Devi is regarding the property in dispute 5. Counsel for the respondent-caveator has opposed the pe$$on by submiGng that aCer the passing of the impugned order, one witness has already been examined. It is also the conten$on that Will proposed to be introduced by the pe$$oners had come into existence prior to filing of the suit and therefore, there was no due diligence on the part of the pe$$oners. 6. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for both the sides, this Court is of the view that trial Court should have allowed the amendment considering the fact that Will proposed to be introduced by the pe$$oners is regarding the property in dispute. The plain$ff-respondent had not started leading the evidence, when the applica$on was moved. 7. As such, without commen$ng anything on the merits of the case and considering the fact that respondent-plain$ff will get the opportunity to controvert the averments of the defendants to be taken by Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.10 18:18 I agree to specified portions of this document CR-3427-2025 (O&M) [3] way of amendment, in the rejoinder, the present revision pe$$on is allowed. The trial Court would permit the pe$$oners-defendant Nos.4 and 7 to amend the wri=en statement but subject to the cost of Rs.5000/- payable to the respondent-plain$ff. 8. Disposed of. 10.09.2025 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No Yogesh Mehta 2025.09.10 18:18 I agree to specified portions of this document