JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. (Oral) - Jaggar Singh son of Phula Singh suffered decree qua 1/3rd share of land measuring 10 bighas 6 biswas belonging to him as detailed in the heading of the plaint on 2.8.88 in the court of Sub Judge First Class, Sunam in civil suit No. 286 of 3.8.87 titled Amrik Singh, Angrej Singh, etc. v. Jaggar Singh son of Phula Singh saying that the said decree was illegal, null and void, against law and facts, non est, without jurisdiction and was as a result of fraud and misrepresentation and inoperative and had been obtained by concealing and suppressing true facts from the court and was ineffective and inoperative, upon the rights of the plaintiff and is not binding upon the plaintiff and is liable to be set aside and mutations sanctioned on the basis of that decree are equally illegal, null and void against law and facts, non est, without jurisdiction and ineffective and inoperative against the rights of the plaintiff and the same are not binding upon him and the entries in the revenue record showing Amrik Singh etc. defendants 1 to 3 as owner of 1/3rd share of Jaggar Singh are illegal, ineffective and inoperative against his rights and the revenue record is liable to be corrected and for permanent injunction restraining defendants 1 to 6 from alienating any specific part of the said land. This suit was filed by Bant Singh on 7.10.96. Plaintiff moved an application for the amendment of the plaint. By way of proposed amendment, he wanted to add para 9-A in the plaint which is to the effect that after the death of Jaggar Singh who had renounced the world and had become sadhu, plaintiff approached Halqa Patwari for sanctioning the mutation of his inheritance in his favour and he came to know that mutations No. 2449 and 1035 had already been sanctioned in favour of Amrik Singh, Angrej Singh and Gurjant Singh sons of Maggar Singh-defendants in pursuance of the judgment and decree dated 2.8.88 of Shri J.S. Kalar, Sub Judge First Class, Sunam, and that prior to approaching the Halqa Patwari, he had no knowledge that Jaggar Singh had suffered that decree and mutations had been sanctioned on the basis of that decree in favour of Amrik Singh, Angrej Singh and Gurjant Singh, defendants. It was alleged in the application for amendment that this averment could not be incorporated in the plaint originally filed out of sheer inadvertence. It was further alleged that the proposed amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. Incorporation of the proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit nor will it cause prejudice to the defendants. 2. Defendants opposed this application. Vide order dated November 3, 1999, the plaintiffs prayer to amend the plaint was declined by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sunam. Feeling dissatisfied with this order, Bant Singh has come up in revision to this Court. 3. Jaggar Singh died in June, 1996. This suit was filed in October, 1996. Bant Singh got cause of action to challenge decree suffered by Jaggar Singh only after the death of Jaggar Singh. He had no right to challenge that decree during the life time of Jaggar Singh. Question of inheritance of Jaggar Singh arose on his death. It is on his death that Bant Singh got cause of action to claim his inheritance. Cause for filing the suit arose to him when succession to Jaggar Singh opened and when Halqa Patwari refused to mutate the inheritance of Jaggar Singh in the plaintiffs favour. It was, thus, an essential fact to be incorporated in the plaint that when he approached the Halqa Patwari for mutating the property of Jaggar Singh in his favour saying that the property already stood mutated in favour of Amrik Singh etc. defendants 1 to 3. Cause of action is a bundle of facts. It was one of the facts which gave him cause of action. Proposed amendment is not at all prejudicial to the defendants so far as substantive defence is concerned. 4. Proposed amendment is allowed on payment of Rs. 1,000/- as costs. Revision allowed. Plaintiff shall be able to avail this order only if he pays costs to the defendants. Revision allowed.