ORDER : Leave granted. 2. An application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint was filed by the appellant in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nakodar. The amendments sought for by him were as follows: First the plaintiff be allowed to amend the wrong written word 139K-Omls' at fourth line of headnote of plaint at page-2, with correct word 139k-5 mls' in place of 139k-Omls'. 3. The plaintiff be also allowed to amend the wrongly written word 60k-17½ mls' and word 121k-15 mls' mentioned at Sr. No. b in headnote of plaint with correct words respectively with word 61k-2½m' and 122k-5 mls' respectively and plaintiff be also allowed to add kh. No. 567(0-10) at the end of last line of Sr. No. b of headnote, which was left unwritten. 4. That plaintiff be also allowed to amend the wrongly written words i.e. 12k-7½m', 760/1(02-0) 761(4-2), with correct words i.e. 12k 17½, 760/1 (2-9), 762/1(4-2), respectively at Sr. No. d of the headnote of plaint. 5. That the plaintiff be also allowed to add following lines in the headnote of plaint at page No. 2 at the end of serial no. f, which were left unmentioned/unwritten: 'land stated above, on the basis of Regd. Will dated 7.8.1968 in favour of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and 2 and the following judgment and decrees are null and void as detailed below: The plaintiff be also allowed to add following words, before starting the Sr. No. iv at page No. 3 in the headnote of plaint before the words 'Judgment and decree' and after the word 'iv': "Judgment and decree dated 3.2.1992 passed by Shri S.S. Hundal, Additional Senior Sub Judge, Nakodar, alongwith." 6. The plaintiff be also allowed to add following lines at para No. 5 of the plaint at page No. 4, at line no. 7, after words 'as owner' and before the word 'nobody'. "On the basis of Regd. will dated 7.6.68 executed by Bhaghat Singh in favour of plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and 2, as the plaintiff served the said Bhagat Singh during his life time and in lieu of services the deceased Bhagat Singh executed the Regd. Will dated 7.6.1968 in favour of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and 2 his sons". 7. will dated 7.6.68 executed by Bhaghat Singh in favour of plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and 2, as the plaintiff served the said Bhagat Singh during his life time and in lieu of services the deceased Bhagat Singh executed the Regd. Will dated 7.6.1968 in favour of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and 2 his sons". 7. The above amendments sought for by the appellant were in relation to plea regarding a Will and certain corrections of some Khasra numbers. If really the suit was for declaration of title, we do not think the plea based on a will after the nature of the case so as to take such a plea out of the ambit of Civil Procedure Code. 8. Certain mistakes have been occurred in describing the Khasra numbers and the appellant wanted to correct them. Whether the numbers given were correct, could have been adjudicated in the course of the trial and not necessarily at the stage of deciding the application for amendment. The trial Court proceeded even to find out whether the plea of execution of a Will in favour of the appellant was correct and the description of the property with reference to Khasra numbers was proper information or not. It was not the stage at which merits of the case could have been considered by the Trial Court. In the circumstances the order made by the trial Court as affirmed by the High Court in Revisional Jurisdictional is set aside and the application filed by the appellant shall be allowed subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the respondents which shall not be costs in the cause. Let such payment of money be paid before the amendment are carried out by the appellant. The amendments shall be carried out within a period of one month from today. The appeal stands allowed accordingly. C.A. Allowed.