DUSHYANT KUMAR Vs. SANTOSH RANI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside order dated 29.9.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal whereby the application moved by the Petitioner under Order 6 Ruler 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.

(2.) It is not in disputed that one Baldev Raj died leaving behind his widow-Smt.Giano Devi. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claimed inheritance to the estate of Baldev Raj on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by the deceased in their favour. Smt. Giano Devi contested the same and filed a suit to say that the Will was forged, fabricated and not binding upon her rights. During the pendency of that suit, Smt. Giano Devi also died allegedly leaving behind a Will in favour of the Petitioner. Thereafter, an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the Petitioner in the suit of Smt. Giano Devi to say that he is a necessary party as the deceased left a Will in his favour. That application was allowed and the Petitioner was permitted to prosecute the suit. During the subsistence of these proceedings, the Petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to amend the plaint to set up a plea that Smt. Giano Devi had executed a Will in his favour which is a necessary fact to be adjudicated upon in the suit. The said application has been declined by the impugned order which is a cause of grievance herein.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the amendment as sought by the Petitioner is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter as the estate of deceased- Baldev Raj is in question. He further contended that essentially if the amendment is allowed, the Petitioner will be able to effectively establish his claim to the estate of Baldev Raj and also negate the claim of the Respondents which is also based on a Will which is a forged and fabricated document.