1 2026:HHC:31521 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA OMP No. 1024 of 2025 in C.S. No. 13 of 2024 Reserved on: 6.7.2026 Decided on : 30.7.2026 Uploaded on: 30.7.2026 Sarojini Sood & others … Applicants Versus Ashutosh Sood …Non-applicant _____________________________ ______________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? yes ___________________________________________________ For the Applicants: Mr. Dheeraj Thakur, Advocate. For the Non-applicants : Mr. Prashant Diwan, Advocate (through V.C.) and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Advocate, for non- applicant No. 2. Virender Singh, Judge Applicants have moved the present application, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, with a prayer to permit them to amend the plaint. 2. The application has been filed in Civil Suit No. 13 of 2024, which has been filed by the applicants/plaintiffs, against the defendants/non- applicants, seeking declaration to declare the settlement deeds, dated 20.2.2021, 20.4.2021 and 14.10.2021, 2 2026:HHC:31521 made in favour of defendant No. 2, be declared as null and void. 3. For the sake of convenience, parties to the application are referred to, in the same manner, as described, in the suit. 4. By way of said suit, the plaintiffs have sought the following relief: “ a. That the present suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants by declaring settlement deeds dated 20.02.2021, 20.04.2021 and 14.10.2021 and other structured/ constructed immovable properties mentioned in para 4 supra whereby the alleged disputed properties are transferred in the name of defendant No. 2 and not to create any third party rights, any encumbrances and any transfer in case of the respective immovable/ properties be declared as null and void and any sort of the revenue entries to that effect. b. That decree for permanent prohibitory injunction may kindly be granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants to the extent not to create any third party rights and any encumbrances, any transfer in case of the respective structured/constructed immovable properties and thereby defeating the claim of the plaintiffs from the alleged suit properties and against the defendants by restraining them from making any change in the disputed properties comprised of Khata/ Khatouni No. 158/240 Khasra No. 552, 560,561,562, 563, 565 situated at Mohal Bhajogi Tehsil Manali and land comprised of Khata /Khatouni No262/304 khasra No 326 and Khata/Khatouni No.263/304 Khasra No 320,323,324,325,850 situated at Mohal Simsa Phati Nasogi Kothi, Tehsil Manali District 3 2026:HHC:31521 Kullu H.P., and structures build over these properties as mentioned in the body of the plaint.” 5. Initially, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs, against defendants Balbir Chand Sood and Ashutosh Sood, but, during the pendency of the lis, on account of death of Balbir Chand Sood, his name was ordered to be deleted from the array of parties, vide order dated 28.4.2025. 6. The application for amendment has been moved, on the ground, that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have sought legal consultation and upon careful consideration, it was found that the plaint lacks certain material facts, which are vital for the effective adjudication of the core issue, in controversy. 7. According to the plaintiffs, on account of death of defendant No. 1 Balbir Chand Sood, on 16.9.2024, the suit is liable to be amended by substituting the words “defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 “appearing in the plaint, by replacing the same by words “Late Balbir Chand Sood” and “defendant”. 4 2026:HHC:31521 8. By way of application, following amendments have been proposed to be made in the plaint: "Chronological List of Events to give the backdrop of the matter: i) 1968: Plaintiff no. 1 secures her regular job as Teacher (TGT). ii) 1978: Marriage between Plaintiff no. 1 and Late Balbir Chand Sood was solemnized. iii) 1980: Late Balbir Chand Sood completes his M.Phil (Physics). iv) 1982: Late Balbir Chand Sood secures his job as Assistant Professor at Dharamshala. v)1983: Plot at Dhalpur Kullu was bought in the joint names of plaintiff and Late Balbir Chand Sood with the funds accumulated by plaintiff no. 1 from her 15 years of savings from Govt. Job. vi) 1986: Late Balbir Chand Sood was transferred to kullu and immediately thereafter the construction work of house at Dhalpur (Kullu) was initiated. vii) 1986-1989: Plaintiff no. 1 poured all her savings in construction of two storey house and contributed in raising and completing the construction by making payments under various heads. viii) 1989: Swati Guest House (6 rooms) was opened in one part of the building and since then the incomes from Swati Guest House were under the control of Late Sh. Balbir Chand Sood. ix) 1989: Three rooms in the building were let out to tenants and the rental income was being used and utilized by Late Sh. Balbir Chand Sood being head of the family. 1994: From the savings and earnings of plaintiff no. 1 and out of the recurring incomes from the Guest House and rental income from tenants Orchard at Khargan (3 bighas) was purchased. 5 2026:HHC:31521 xi) 2003: From the savings and earnings of plaintiff no. 1 and out of the recurring incomes from the Guest House and rental income from tenants and income from Orchard at Khargan (3 bighas) another land at Bajhogi Manali was purchased in the name of Late Sh. Balbir Chand Sood only being the head of the family. xii) 2004: Plaintiff no. 1 got honorably retired as Principal from her Govt. job and received hefty amount in shape of retirement benefits which were also poured in payment of balance sale consideration of properties purchased earlier and in raising and developing new properties. xiii) 2004: Joint loan on Dhalpur (Kullu) joint property was raised to clear the sale considerations and for raising and developing new properties. 2008: Loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- was raised to construct and develop a Rest House at Bhajogi under the name and style of Mount Pleasant. Remaining savings and pension income were again poured into the aforementioned project. xv) 2008: Defendant Ashutosh completes his B.Tech. xvi) 2011: Mount Pleasant was ready and recurring income from the same started flowing to the family and all the incomes generated out of the rents and sales from the aforesaid properties created and developed by major contribution by the plaintiff no. 1 were used and utilized by Late Sh. Balbir Chand and all the properties as such are in his name only. xvii) 2015: Property at Simsa Manali was bought from the aforesaid incomes and efforts of plaintiff no.1 xviii)2016: Loan of Rs. 44,00,000/- was raised from P.N.B. to develop the same. xix) Rs. 50,00,000/- Joint loan against the Dhalpur Kullu property was raised to develop the property at Simsa. xx) 22-3-2017: Plaintiff no. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 49,505/- qua Simsa property. 6 2026:HHC:31521 xxi) 11-4-2017: Plaintiff no. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 13,40,000/- for Simsa property. xxii) 15-4-2017: Plaintiff no. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 82,000/- against invoice related to Simsa property. xxiii) 18-5-2020: Plaintiff no. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- against loan account of Hotel Manali Mantra, Simsa, Manali and those times Late Sh. Balbir Chand Sood was on dialysis and was at Chandigarh. xxiv) 2020: Late Balbir Chand Sood remained under treatment at Chandigarh and it were plaintiff no. 1 and 3 who took care and looked after the deceased till 2021. xxv) 20-2-2021: Late Sh. Balbir Chand Sood under coercion, fraud and unfit state of physical and mental health executed impugned settlement deed in favour of Ashutosh only. xxvi) 20-4-2021: Late Sh. Balbir Chand Sood under coercion, fraud and unfit state of physical and mental health executed impugned settlement deed favour of Ashutosh only. xxvii) 14-10-2021: Late Sh. Balbir Chand Sood under coercion, fraud and unfit state of physical and mental health executed impugned strar settlement deed in favour of Ashutosh only. xxviii)16-9-2024: Late Sh. Balbir Chand Sood passes away. xxix) 26-9-2024: Alleged Will dated 1-12-2021 was disclosed by defendant. Summary of Events: That the Plaintiff No. 1 was in permanent employment as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) since the year 1968 and being unmarried she accumulated significant savings from her employment. The Plaintiff No.1 got married with Late Balbir Chand Sood in the year 1978 on which date Late Balbir Chand Sood was not having any permanent employment. The Late Balbir Chand Sood secured regular employment in the year 1982 at Dharamshala. In the year 1983 the Plaintiff No.1 purchased a plot at Dhalpur, Kullu 7 2026:HHC:31521 jointly in her name as well as in the name of Late Balbir Chand Sood/ husband. Her husband was lacking financial capacity to bear expenses and sale consideration but the plaintiff no-1 being a devotional Hindu wife abundantly poured her financial aid that she had accumulated from her 15 years of job as a TGT hence bearing all the expenses and sale consideration by herself. The defendant no.1 got his first transfer to Kullu in the year 1986 and the plaintiff No.1 being a dutiful wife belonging to a conventional Hindu family used to handover all her earning to her husband and out of these savings both Plaintiff No.1 and her husband raised two-storey building on the land situated at Dhalpur, Kullu. Since the year 1989, the family used to earn rental income as well as income from guest house being run in the property. The facts as mentioned above would reveal that the property was basically purchased by the Plaintiff No.1, as it was all because of her fifteen years of savings from government service and the property laterally developed started fetching the family recurring income from rent as well as guest house income. Further, with the income of Plaintiff No.1 and recurring income from the two-storey building in shape of rent as well as guest house income, The plaintiff No.1 and her husband purchased remaining properties in the name of Late Balbir Chand Sood only which in fact is exclusive efforts and out of the income/earnings of Plaintiff No.1. The property at Khargan, Raisan was purchased in the year 1994 out of the income earned from guest house, rental income as well as contribution of Plaintiff No.1. Likewise, another property Bhajogi (Mount Pleasant home stay) in old Manali was purchased in similar fasion. The recurring income from the property purchased, the bank details would further reveal that in the year, 2017 Plaintiff No.1 and Late Balbir Chand Sood borrowed loan of Rs. 50,00,000/- and raised a big size hotel that is four-storey hotel, 'Manali Mantra' rest of the 8 2026:HHC:31521 expenses incurred on raising developing hotel were majorly borne by Plaintiff no.1 and also the funds from other sources of family income were also invested in the same. From the facts and circumstances enumerated hereinabove it is amply clear that Late Balbir Chand Sood was appointed in Government service in the year 1982, whereas the Plaintiff No.1 was in regular job as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) since 1968 and the first property jointly bought by the parties in the year 1983 which is a self- speaking fact that all the expenses as well as sale considerations were borne by the Plaintiff No.1." 9. Similarly, in para-4 of the plaint, following lines are proposed to be added: “The plaintiff No-1 has not only financially supported but also contributed by raising and educating three children by herself when her husband Late Balbir Chand Sood was posted at Dharamshala before he was transferred to Kullu in 1986. All the efforts financial support, sacrifices of the Plaintiff No.1 have been instrumental in the purchase of new properties, developing the properties and raising structures thereon, and resultantly leading to recurring income to the family." 10. In para-5, following lines are proposed to be inserted, in the opening lines, by replacing words “defendant No. 1 being owner in possession” by words “Late Balbir Chand Sood being joint owner in possession”. The year of joining job of plaintiff No. 1 has to be replaced with “1968” instead of “1988”. After the para ends, following lines are proposed to be added: 9 2026:HHC:31521 “Plaintiff No. 1 being a dutiful wife belonging to a conventional Hindu family used to handover all her earning to her husband (Late Balbir Chand Sood) and out of these savings both Plaintiff No.1 and Late Balbir Chand Sood raised two-storey building on the land situated at Dhalpur, Kullu comprising Khata/khatauni no- 470/630 and Khasra no- in her 2963/2883/370 and construction of the said building started in 1986. For the construction of which the plaintiff no-1 has put labour and hard earned money as is clear from receipts of payment on 12.11.1987 for a payment of 3500 rupees towards the repair and construction of doors and windows on the first floor and on 19-12-1987 for payment of 619 rupees to Rajeev enterprises for household construction items and on 14- 10-1991 a payment of 3200 rupees towards construction of windows, doors and almirahs for first floor and on 02-03- 1992 for payment of 3915 rupees towards construction of windows and doors and also the money from her salary which she handed over to her husband in cash. The property laterally developed started fetching the family recurring income from rent as well as guest house income. Further, with the income of Plaintiff No.1 and recurring income from the two- storey building in shape of rent as well as guest house income, many other properties were purchased in the name of Balbir Chand Sood (deceased) which in fact is exclusive efforts and out of the income/earnings of Plaintiff No.1 who being a devotional Hindu wife never questioned her husband. From the recurring income Late Balbir Chand Sood also bought orchard farm at Khargan, Raison in the year 1994. Likewise another property at Simsa, Manali was purchased in the year 1994 out of the income earned from guest house, rental income, income from the orchard as well as contribution of Plaintiff No.1 on 21-11-2003 land comprised in Bhajogi (Mount Pleasant home stay) Phati 10 2026:HHC:31521 and kothi Manali comprising No-417 Khatouni No -771 Khasra No - 1674 was bought in the name of Late Balbir Chand Sood for a consideration of 4,44,000 rupees and stamp fees of 53,300 rupees. This consideration and other expenses were paid out of the income gained from the Swati guest house, rented accommodations and joint efforts of plaintiff no-1 and Late Balbir Chand Sood. In the year 2004 the title deed of the land bought in the year 1983 from the 15 years of saving of plaintiff no-1 at Dhalpur Khasra no- 2963/2883/370 was pledged with State Bank Of Patiala as per banks norms for raising house loan as is clear from the acknowledgment of 23-04-04 and this loan was borrowed on a joint account of plaintiff no-1 and Late Balbir Chand Sood and other two statements of the joint account makes it clear that the amount was repaid in cash in which the repayments were made from the income from Swati guest house, rented accommodation and the salary of plaintiff no- 1 and Late Balbir Chand Sood. The above said property at Dhalpur was again used as security at State Bank of India Branch Sarvari Bazar, Kullu for raising loan in joint account of plaintiff no-1 and Late Balbir Chand Sood which was closed with no dues on 8.9.2008. Further loan from Punjab National Bank of 600000 rupees sanctioned on 26-12-2008 in favour of plaintiff no-1 and Late Balbir settled vide Chand Sood which stood acknowledgment dated 06-11-2024. Further an overdraft facility was sanctioned on 22-03-2016 in favour of Mount Pleasant Guest House having account no- 3378009300015825 which was availed jointly by the plaintiff no-1 and Late Balbir Chand Sood and in statement of account dated 06-05-2016 it is clear that a credit of 3,40,000 rupees has been made by plaintiff no -1 showing her one of several payments in favour of the maintenance and construction of Hotel Manali Mantra. Hence from above mentioned facts it is clear that all loans were jointly 11 2026:HHC:31521 borrowed and settled by both plaintiff no-1 and Late Balbir Chand Sood by their income from the guest house, rented accommodations and salary/ pension. Plaintiff no-1 retired from her job in the year 2004 and in shape of gratuity and other retirement benefits including her pension in cash she received hefty amount. This lump sum money and pension received by way of cash was poured largely towards the repayment of loans, construction and maintenance of properties and acquiring new properties. That the bank details would further reveal that in the year, 2017 Plaintiff No.1 and Late Balbir Chand Sood borrowed loan of Rs. 50, 00,000/- and raised a big size four-storey hotel 'Manali Mantra' rest of the expenses incurred on raising developing hotel were majorly borne by Plaintiff no. 1 as is clear from the payment of 82,000 Rupees made by Plaintiff No-1 towards Luxmi Timber And allied industries for wooden laminated doors for the hotel on 22/03/2017 and also the funds from other sources of family income such as the guest house, rented accommodations, orchard and salary were also invested in the same. Plaintiff No-1 on several occasions has provided aid to the Late Balbir Chand Sood and helped him secure and purchase several properties and create varied sourced of income for family." 11. In para-6, in opening lines, following lines are proposed to be substituted by inserting the words “defendant No. 2 has done his B.Tech in 2009” in place of words “defendant did his B.Tech. (Electronics and communication) from PTU in the year 2009 and served”. In addition to this, following lines are proposed to be added: 12 2026:HHC:31521 “Defendant remained best employee of the company and was withdrawing monthly salary of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The defendant is well qualified to earn and live his life based on his educational qualification and as such he cannot be considered and termed as unsettled”. 12. Similarly, in para-7, the following lines are proposed to be added: “That the plaintiffs No-2 and 3 were also loving daughters of their father and also took care of him when he was suffering from CKD (chronic kidney disease) whereas the son (defendant) had least concern of him. That the Defendant instead of showing concern and care towards his father induced him to execute unilateral and biased settlement deeds and Will under challenge by applying fraud and misrepresentation on his father when was not in proper mental and physical health conditions". 13. A prayer has further been made to amend para- 8, by inserting following lines, in the end of para-8: “The factum of various payments made by the plaintiff no. 1 and joint loan accounts and other transactions clearly highlights and qualify the contribution of Plaintiff No-1 in acquiring and maintaining the property in equal shares and all the above contributions have resulted in the creation of joint ownership between deceased Balbir Chand Sood and plaintiff No-1 and before executing settlement deeds and Will late Balbir Chand Sood has failed to obtain consent of the plaintiff no. 1 with regard to the disposal of said property and hence the unilateral execution of Settlement deeds and Will by late Balbir Chand Sood favoring the defendant is in total contravention to settled proposition of law and such not tenable and deserves to be declared null and void. The 13 2026:HHC:31521 deceased has played fraud with the plaintiff No-1 and ignored her consents and in the given facts and circumstances the aforementioned properties cannot be termed as self- acquired properties." 14. In addition to this, Sub-para 8(A) is required to be added, as, according to the plaintiffs, new facts have been discovered during the pendency of the suit. The proposed amendment is reproduced, as under: “That the deceased Balbir Chand Sood passed away on 16-9-2024 and on 24-9-2024 an alleged Will dated 1/12/2021 was opened up by defendant Ashutosh where in it has been mentioned that Late Balbir Chand Sood executed a will dated 01/12/2021 in favour of the defendant only. This Will is a result of fraud and undue influence used by the defendant upon deceased Balbir Chand Sood at the time of making of the said Will. That the testator of the will Late Balbir Chand Sood was unwell with mislead and influence the testator to execute the said will. The illness can be ascertained by medical records and due to such illness, the testator (deceased) was stressed and the defendant influenced the testator to execute such will by making fake promises and using the inability of the testator to understand and act on the circumstances and conditions of the will. At the time of signing the will, the testator was not aware of the information that is included in the Will and hence the will is not valid but a fruit of fraud and undue influence. As mentioned above as the properties so bequeathed by late Balbir Chand Sood were joint properties and hence he could not have executed any Will qua the same. Furthermore, the property in question is not self-acquired property of the Late Balbir Chand Sood and the plaintiff 14 2026:HHC:31521 no.1 had also majorly contributed in the same. Hence, the settlement deeds and the Will dated 1-12-2021 made by the Late Balbir Chand Sood without the consent of the plaintiff no.1 are bad and not binding upon the rights of plaintiff no. 1 and all the above deserves to be declared as null and void." 15. In para-10, the following lines are proposed to be added: “That it is a well-established judicial precedent that any family settlement should be just and equitable and on bona fide terms so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by fair and equitable division and allotment. But Late Balbir Chand Sood and defendant have kept the plaintiffs who have interest in the property un-informed of the settlement deeds and the Will which signals fraud on behalf of the defendants and a well-planned act to deprive the plaintiffs of their legitimate rights in the property in which they have invested their time and money." 16. In para-11, following lines are proposed to be added: “a) The family settlement must be a bona fide one so as to resolve family disputes and rival claims by a fair and equitable division or allotment of properties between the various members of the family; (b) The said settlement must be voluntary and should induced by fraud, coercion or undue influence. In the instant matter prima-facie there is no bonafides shown, no equitable distribution done and there is allotment of properties to the actual contributor as well as no allocation of properties to plaintiffs" 15 2026:HHC:31521 17. In para-12, in place of words “present documents”, words “aforementioned settlement deeds and Will No. 169/21 dated 1.12.2021, executed in favour of defendant”, are proposed to be added. 18. After para-14, following para is proposed to be added, which is as follows: “14A That plaintiff No. 1 being legally wedded wife of late Balbir Chand Sood and has been instrumental and equal contributor in acquiring and raising various properties in District Kullu and Manali. The list of the properties was very much in the knowledge of defendant, however, for removal of doubts the list is as follows: Sr.No. Property name Mohal Khasra No. Land measuring 1. Manali Mantra (four storied hotel) Simsa 326 00-23-38 hectare/11 biswas 2. Mount Pleasant (Home Stay) Circuit House Rd. Old Manali Bhajogi 552, 560,561, 562, 565 38-79-34 out of which his share is 0- 161-64 3. Residence Dhapur Kullu Mahant Behr 2963/28/83 /370 00-04-00 4. Orchard Raison Khargan 16 2026:HHC:31521 19. In prayer clause (a) of the main suit, after the words “settlement deeds dated 20.2.2021, 20.4.2021 and 14.10.2021”, following words are required to be inserted “and WILL bearing number 169/2021 dated 1.12.2021 as null and void”. Instead of words “other structured/constructed immovable properties mentioned in para-4 supra, whereby the alleged disputed properties are transferred in the name of defendant No. 2 and not to create any third party rights, any encumbrances and any transfer in case of the respective immovable/ properties be declared as null and void and any sort of the revenue entries to that effect" the words "other structured/ constructed immovable properties mentioned in para 4 supra whereby the alleged disputed properties are transferred in the name of defendant and creation of any third party rights, any encumbrances and any transfer in case of the respective immovable/ properties and any sort of change in the revenue entries to that effect, by or at the behest of the defendant be declared as null and void”, are proposed to be inserted. 17 2026:HHC:31521 20. After prayer clause (b) of the main suit, the following additional prayers are also required to be inserted, as clauses b1 and b2, which are as under: “b1. That the present suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant by declaring the plaintiffs as joint owners of the suit property to the extent of 1/4 share each i.e. Land comprised of khata khatauni no. khasra 158/240 no. 552560,561,562,563,565, measuring 38-79-34 denci meter having share of 0-16164/387934, situated at muhal bhajogi, tehsil manali distt. kullu hp., and land comprised in khata khatouni 262/303 khasra no. 326 measuring 00-01-21 hectare and khata/khatouni no. 263/304, khasra no.320,324,324,325,850 land measuring 00-25-16 hectare to the extent of share i.e. 00-02-81 in 281/2516 and the total of which is 00-04-02 hectare situated at Muhal Simsa Phati Nasogi Kothi Tehsil Manali Distt Kullu H.P. b2. That decree for settlement and rendition of accounts may kindly be granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay Rs. 2,67,02,400/- (Rs. Two Crores sixty-seven lacs two thousand and four hundred) as outstanding amount arising out of incomes of the aforementioned properties and also for settlement and rendition of accounts as well as for future- mesne profits." 21. The aforesaid amendments are stated to be essential for the proper adjudication of the case and, according to the plaintiffs, the same will not alter the nature of the suit. 18 2026:HHC:31521 22. Lastly, it has been pleaded that the matter is at initial stage and the proposed amendment would not cause any prejudice to other party. 23. The application is duly supported by the affidavit of plaintiff No. 3. 24. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 25. When, put to notice, the application has been contested by the defendant. In the reply, he has taken the preliminary objections that by way of proposed amendments, plaintiffs have introduced an altogether new claim in respect of the Will bearing No. 169/2021, dated 1.12.2021, i.e. “to declare the said Will as null and void”. The proposed amendment is said to alter the very nature of the suit. 26. The present application for amendment is also stated to be hit by doctrine of misjoinder of cause of action. The proposed amendment would cause serious prejudice to the defendant. The application has not been filed by the plaintiffs by exercising due diligence. 19 2026:HHC:31521 27. The defendant has raised serious doubts about the veracity and genuineness of contents of the application, as according to the defendant, plaintiffs have no respect towards the departing soul, i.e. late Balbir Chand Sood, whose property, the plaintiffs are asserting as their so called right. 28. On merits, the application has been contested by pleading that if the proposed amendment is allowed, it will change the nature of the case. However, factual position, with regard to death of Balbir Chand Sood, on 16.9.2024 has not been disputed. 29. It has also been pointed out that the factual position, sought to be inserted in the chronological list of events, is relating to the time, pertaining to post institution of the suit. 30. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 31. Plaintiffs have filed rejoinder to the application, denying the preliminary objections, and re-asserted the contents of the application. 20 2026:HHC:31521 32. Thus, a prayer has been made to allow the application for amendment. 33. The perusal of the record shows that the afore- titled suit was filed on 26.4.2024 and thereafter, on account of death of defendant No. 2, his name was ordered to be deleted from the array of parties, vide order dated 28.4.2025. Written statement has been filed by defendant No. 1 on 3.9.2024, whereas, defendant No. 2 has filed the written statement on 16.9.2024. 34. Issues, in the present case, have yet not been framed. As such, it can be said that trial has not commenced. The proposed amendment, as per the application, is necessary for the just adjudication of the case. 35. In para-12 of the written statement, defendant No. 1 (Sh. Balbir Chand Sood) has pleaded that as a responsible husband and father, he had executed the Will and handed over the same to his younger brother Jiwan Sood. By way of the proposed amendment, the said Will has also been challenged. Admittedly, there 21 2026:HHC:31521 was no occasion for the plaintiffs to assail the Will, during the lifetime of Balbir Chand Sood. 36. Para-12 of the written statement, filed by late Balbir Chand Sood is reproduced as under: “That due to the act of challenging the decision made by the replying Defendant No. 1 by virtue of filing the present suit, the replying Defendant no.1 ends up all the replying Defendant no.1 by virtue of filing the worldly relations with the Plaintiffs (who are the wife and daughters of Defendant no.1). By way of the present Written statement, the replying Defendant no.1 predicate and asseverate that after his demise, none of the Plaintiffs shall be his Legal Representatives (LRs) in any court of law. Furthermore, the Defendant no.1 being a responsible husband and a father, had already executed a Will, which has been handed over by the replying Defendant no.1 to his younger brother, namely Sh. Jeevan Sood in a sealed envelope and as per the instructions of replying Defendant no.1, the same shall be out and open in front of all the family members and relatives after the 13th day of his demise. Therefore, in lieu of the same, the present suit is not maintainable and is liable to be out rightly rejected, in the interest of equity and justice.” 37. In view of the aforesaid stand, taken by late Balbir Chand Sood, in his written statement, learned counsel for the defendant could not satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court as to how the said document, which genuinely came into play, after the death of the testator, can be challenged in the suit, which has been 22 2026:HHC:31521 filed, in the year 2024, much prior to the demise of late Balbir Chand Sood. 38. The provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC are reproduced as under: “17.Amendment of pleadings The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 39. Law with regard to amendment has elaborately been discussed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India versus Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and anr., reported in (2022) 16 SCC 1. Relevant paragraphs 71 to 71.11 of the judgment are reproduced as under: 71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: 71.1 Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. 23 2026:HHC:31521 The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. 71.2 All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. 71.3 The prayer for amendment is to be allowed 71.3.1 if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and 71.3.2 to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side, (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side and (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). 71.4 A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless 71.4.1 By the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration, 71.4.2 The amendment changes the nature of the suit, 71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is malafide, or 71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. 71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. 71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to pin- pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. 24 2026:HHC:31521 71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. 71.8 Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. 71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. 71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. 71.11. Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897)”. 40. In this case, the prayer, as made in the application, has been opposed by the defendant on the ground that if the proposed amendment is permitted, the same would change the nature of original suit, whereas, at the time of filing of the suit, there was no 25 2026:HHC:31521 occasion for the plaintiffs to challenge the Will, allegedly executed by late Balbir Chand Sood, who, in the lis, was impleaded as defendant No. 1. 41. The defendant, in this regard, has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basvaraj versus Indira and others, reported in (2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 705. 42. With due respect to the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basvaraj’s case, the same in no way helps the case of the defendant, as in the matter, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the application for amendment was moved, when, the lis was at the fag end, i.e. ‘fixed for arguments’, whereas, in the present case, the trial has not yet commenced. 43. Reliance has also been placed by the defendant on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Revanna versus Anjanamma (dead) by legal representatives & others, reported in (2019) 4 Supreme Court Cases 332. The same also does not help the case of the defendant, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the said case, has held that burden is on the person, who 26 2026:HHC:31521 seeks an amendment after commencement of the trial, to show that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier, which is not the case here, as the trial has yet not commenced. 44. Reliance has also been placed by the defendant upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravajeetu Builders and Developers versus Narayanaswamy and sons and others, reported in (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 84. In the said case, following principles have been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: “63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (1) whether the amendment sought is intperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately on terms of money; 4) refusing am amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) whether the proposed amendment Constitutionally fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and or 27 2026:HHC:31521 (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under filed under Order Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive. 64. The decision of an application made under Order 6 Rule 17 is a very serious judicial exercise and the said exercise should never be undertaken in a casual manner. We can conclude our discussion by observing that while deciding applications for amendments the courts must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide, worthless and or dishoest amendments.” 45. Judging the facts and circumstances of the present case, in the light of the judgments, as referred to above, learned counsel for the defendant could not point out as to how the plaintiffs can seek declaration of the Will as null and void at an earlier point of time. There is nothing on the file to show as to how the proposed amendment would fundamentally change the nature of the case. As such, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravajeetu Builders and Developers case (supra) supports the case of the plaintiffs. 46. So far as the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as, Asian Hotels (North) Limited versus 28 2026:HHC:31521 Alok Kumar Lodha and others, reported in (2022) 8 Supreme Court Cases 145, is concerned, the defendant again cannot take the benefit of the same, as the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, as by way of proposed amendment, subsequent events and explanation thereof are being proposed to be inserted. 47. At the cost of repetition, the proposed amendment is largely based on the subsequent events, on account of unforeseen circumstances, i.e. death of defendant Balbir Chand Sood, who, is stated to have executed the Will, which, he had allegedly handed over to his younger brother, and by way of proposed amendment, the said Will has been sought to be declared as null and void, alongwith the documents, which have already been sought to be declared as null and void, in the present suit. 48. The stand, as taken by the plaintiffs, in the present case, falls within the principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India’s case (supra) in para 71.11 of the judgment. 29 2026:HHC:31521 49. If the proposed amendment is allowed, the defendant would get an opportunity to meet out those allegations, which would be incorporated in the pleadings by way of filing written statement to amend the plaint. 50. Considering all these facts, the application, under consideration, is allowed and the same is disposed of as such. C.S.No. 13 of 2024 51. List on 17.8.2026. (Virender Singh) Judge 29.7.2026 Kalpana