IN THE HI 129 Smt. Surinder Sh. Jaswant Si CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, of India is file 07.12.2024 (A Division, Khar under Order 6 and to allow t of justice. 2. that the pe children/legal 21.08.2015. A of Dayal Sin Aggrieved of respondent, th half share in E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA der Kaur Vs. nt Singh HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr.Harish Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PTA, J. Present petition under Art filed by the plaintiff seeking setti 4 (Annexure P1) passed by the Kharar in Civil Suit No.CS-341-201 er 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment o ow the application for amendment Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and the egal heirs of deceased Dayal Si . After his death, the respondent Singh dated 25.01.2015 and A of the said fraud and the man t, the petitioner filed suit for decla in estate of her father Dayal Sing D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-22-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.01.2025 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA cate r Article 227 of the Constitution setting aside of the order dated the learned Civil Judge, Junior 2019, whereby the application ent of the plaint, was dismissed; ent of the plaint, in the interest the petitioner/plaintiff submits e respondent/defendant are l Singh who had expired on ent forged and fabricated a Will d Affidavit dated 01.09.2015. manipulated Will made by the eclaration that she is entitled to Singh. However, at the time of 7 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document filing the said therefore, cou attack. It is s could not me petitioner filed amendment o order, the sam 3. respondent h before the lea days after the also purchase Ghanaur, Patia the ancestral Nagar, Mohali share in the p after selling th joint possess accordingly in petitioner had necessary to a is further subm the nature of t said suit, the petitioner was und , could not disclose that Dayal Sin is submitted that due to this imm mention the other land situated filed the present application under nt of the plaint (Annexure P2). H same has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the t had also presented one forged e learned Court below alleged to h the death of the father of the pe hased one land in village Harpalp Patiala which has been purchased b tral land situated in Village Bhukr hali. It is contended that since the d he property of his father and the a g the ancestral property, therefore session of the abovesaid land in order to include these techn had moved the application for am to amend the plaint for proper and submitted that the said amendmen of the suit. However, these facts under great mental stress and l Singh had suffered a paralysis immense stress, the petitioner ted in the village. As such, the der Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking ). However, vide the impugned the petitioner submits that the ged Affidavit dated 01.09.2015 to have been executed just 10 e petitioner. The defendant had rpalpur, Hadbast No.116, Tehsil ed by the defendant after selling ukri, Tehsil Kharar, District SAS he defendant is entitled to equal he aforesaid property is bought fore, the petitioner is entitled to also. It is submitted that chnical facts in the plaint, the amendment of plaint, as it was and just decision of the case. It ments would have no impact on have not been appreciated by 7 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the learned tr trial Court fail nature of the way of amen 1/09/2015 is change the na in issue. So, r not change t document was the suit. Furth some more la selling the an changed the n the nature of The said fact mental stress, not instruct he petition be all of justice for p 4. 5. perused the ca d trial Court while passing the im t failed to appreciate that in makin the suit would remain unchanged. mendment sought to include th is forged and fabricated docume e nature of the case. Already disput o, regarding additional relief regar ge the nature and substance of was not in the knowledge of the pl urther by way of amendment, pla e land, being ancestral, since the s e ancestral land at Tehsil Ghanur. he nature of the suit. So, all these a of the suit, rather will reduce the act was again not in knowledge of t ess, the suit could not be filed prop ct her counsel properly. It is accord allowed, and the impugned order for proper adjudication of the matte No other argument is raise I have heard learned cou e case file in great detail. Page 3 of 7 e impugned order. The learned aking the said amendments, the ed. First of all the petitioner by the fact that affidavit dated ument. This document will not spute regarding forgery of Will is egarding forgery of Affidavit will of suit at all. Moreover, this e plaintiff, at the time of filing of , plaintiff wanted to incorporate he same was also purchased, by nur. So, the same will also not se amendments, will not change the multiplying of the litigation. of the petitioner. Further due to roperly and the petitioner could rdingly prayed that the instant rder be set aside in the interest atter. aised on behalf of the petitioner. counsel for the petitioner and 7 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6. 22.05.2019 se was entitled t headnote of t 25.01.2015 is deceased Day of defendant i plaintiff, with injunction res Thereafter, the P2) was filed b above said pla 7. ju 8. is very cate amendment sh Court comes t The Present suit was filed 9 seeking declaration to the effect ed to half share in the estate of he of the plaint; and for declaration t is forged and fabricated; and Dayal Singh sanctioned on basis of ant is illegal, null and void having n ith consequential relief of joint po restraining the defendant from a r, the present application under Ord led by the petitioner on 24.09.2024 plaint. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC reads “17. Amendment of pleadings. - the proceedings allow either pa pleadings in such manner and just, and all such amendments necessary for the purpose of deter controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for a after the trial has commenced, un conclusion that in spite of due di have raised the matter before the Bare reading of the above categorically stipulated therein t nt shall be allowed after the trial es to the conclusion that in spite iled by the petitioner/plaintiff on ffect that the petitioner/plaintiff f her father as described in the ion to the effect that Will dated nd mutation of inheritance of of the abovesaid Will in favour ng no effect on the rights of the t possession and for permanent m alienating the suit property. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (Annexure 2024 seeking amendment of the ads as under: - -The Court may at any stage of r party to alter or amend his and on such terms as may be nts shall be made as may be determining the real questions in ties: for amendment shall be allowed d, unless the Court comes to the ue diligence, the party could not e the commencement of trial.” ove-said provision shows that it in that “...no application for trial is commenced, unless the pite of due diligence, the party 7 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document could not ha trial.” Admitte trial Court in Order 6 Rule 1 petitioner on permitted as p 9. has sought to perusal of the Section 151 CP prayer clause; in the said app by learned cou 10. wishes to inco by the petition in the plaint i under great st facts were no constitute a permitted illeg in this stipulat allowed after t t have raised the matter befor ittedly, issues in the present case t in November 2023; whereas the ule 17 CPC (Annexure P2) for amen on 24.09.2024 i.e. after trial had as per law. Furthermore, by way of the t to lay challenge to the Affidavit da the application (Annexure P2) unde 1 CPC for amendment of the plaint use; shows that the said Affidavit ha application for amendment of plai counsel for the petitioner. By way of the amendm incorporate challenge to some more itioner for failing to incorporate the int is that at the time of filing of at stress due to paralysis attack of e not in her knowledge. Howeve a ground on the basis of which illegally after commencement of t ulation/enunciation that no applica fter trial. Page 5 of 7 fore the commencement of ase were framed by the learned the present application under mendment has been filed by the had commenced - which is not f the amendment, the petitioner it dated 01.09.2015. However, a under Order 6 Rule 17 read with laint, of both, the pleadings and it has now here been mentioned plaint. This fact is also admitted dment, the petitioner further more land. The only reason given the said amendments originally of the suit, the petitioner was of her father, and that the said ever, ‘mental stress’ does not ch amendment of plaint can be of trial. The proviso is categoric plication for amendment shall be 7 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11. on 09.08.2024 the attack of p place before 4 brother. I did n father as the c death nor he a with my broth of my father.” dates or the p no medical ev said contentio 12. trial is envisag diligence, the However, it ha 13. the petitioner dated 01.09.20 It is also relevant to note t 024, the petitioner has clearly state of paralysis took place. I do not k re 4 to 5 days earlier to death nor I did not tell my counsel about the fa the counsel did not ask me. I did n he asked me anything about the wil rother. I do not remember when my er.” The application of the petitione he period during which she remaine l evidence has been produced by t ntion. Further, amendment to pla isaged only if it is shown on record the said facts were not in the k has been observed in the impugne “11. It is also pertinent to mentio on addressing arguments by both stay application was decided. Th on record proposed facts which is now, but no efforts has been mad of to incorporate the proposed fac Though it has been conten ner that the petitioner did not hav 9.2015; or the land that is now sou te that in her cross-examination stated that “I do not know when ot know whether paralysis took nor I enquired this fact from my he fact of paralysis attack of my did not talk to my father till his e will. The record of treatment is n my brother got the treatment ioner does not even disclose the ained under mental stress. Even by the petitioner to support the o plaint after commencement of cord that despite exercise of due e knowledge of the applicant. ugned order that: – ention here that on 04.11.2023, both the parties of the case the d. The plaintiff could have bring ch is intended to be incorporated made by the plaintiff at the time d facts.” ntended by learned counsel for have knowledge of the Affidavit sought to be incorporated in the 7 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document plaint. Howev indicate as to regarding the is belied by t regarding wh Clearly therefo and could hav prior to comm due diligence permitted. 14. for interferenc cover lacunae to plead rega evidence to b Court. 15. 16. 13.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo wever, there is nothing whatsoev s to the manner in which the petiti the said facts. In any event, the said by the fact that the petitioner wa which she had already deposed erefore, the said facts were in the have been brought on record be mmencement of trial. However, the nce. For this reason as well, t In view of the above, no g rence in the impugned order. The nae in the case which cannot be p regarding facts and document. Th to be led and therefore, does not The present petition is dism Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No soever on record to reveal or etitioner now gained knowledge said contention of the petitioner wants to incorporate material osed in her cross-examination. the knowledge of the petitioner before the learned trial Court r, the petitioner failed to exercise ll, the amendment cannot be no ground is made out that calls The petitioner is only trying to e permitted as she has omitted t. This falls in the field of the not call for interference of this dismissed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 7 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document