[2026:RJ-JP:11775] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3367/2021 Surendra Singh Son Of Shri Gulab Singh, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of Plot No. C-1A, Water Works Road, Banipark, Near Maharaja Apartment, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Shivram Singh Son Of Shri Panne Singh, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Plot No. C-1A, Water Works Road, Banipark, Near Maharaja Apartment, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitesh Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Goyal, Sr. Adv. assisted by Ms. Ronak Bansal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 19/03/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner was directed on the last occasion to place on record the issues which were framed in the suit. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a copy of the issues has already been filed before the Registry; however, the same has not been attached to the record. Both counsels have, nonetheless, furnished copies of the issues. 3. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 06.02.2021, passed by learned Additional District Judge, No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, whereby the application of the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been partly dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intended to raise objections with respect to the will dated 27.05.2015 and sought to incorporate a prayer declaring the said [2026:RJ-JP:11775] (2 of 2) [CW-3367/2021] will as forged, fabricated, and void, being contrary to the rights of the plaintiff. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits the amendment was necessary as the existence of the said will came to the petitioner’s knowledge only after the filing of the written statement by the defendant. It is contended that the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. 6. Heard. 7. On perusal of the issues, this Court finds that the dispute regarding the will dated 27.05.2015 has already been taken into consideration by the learned Trial Court, and an issue to that effect has been duly framed. 8. This Court is of the view that once an issue concerning the validity of the will dated 27.05.2015 has already been framed, the same is required to be adjudicated by the learned Trial Court. The parties shall be entitled to lead evidence on the said issue. Therefore, it is not necessary to permit the proposed amendment, as the controversy has already been encompassed within the issues framed on the basis of the existing pleadings. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity in the order dated 06.02.2021 warranting interference under its writ jurisdiction. 9. With the above observations, the present Civil Writ Petition is dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J MAHIMA/22