JUDGMENT L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral).: - Plaintiffs have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 19.5.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barnala thereby dismissing plaintiffs’ application for amendment of plaint. 2. Suit has been filed for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.12.1981 wherein it was recited that Bhani had already died and the sale deed would be executed within 40 days after sanction of mutation of estate of Bhani. In the plaint, the plaintiffs pleaded that Bhani had died on 5.12.1996. By way of amendment, the plaintiffs want to plead that Bhani had expired 50 years ago and defendants got mutation of her land sanctioned in connivance with revenue officials by depicting date of her death as 5.12.1996. 3. The defendants opposed the amendment application and alleged that mutation was got sanctioned on the basis of death certificate depicting date of death of Bhani as 5.12.1996 and the agreement dated 17.12.1981 is a forged and fabricated document and falsely reciting that Bhani had already died although Bhani died later on on 5.12.1996. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 5. Admittedly the suit was at the preliminary stage when amendment application was filed. Issues had not yet been framed. Law of amendment of pleadings is a bit liberal although some restrictions have been imposed by amendment of Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless the suit being at initial stage, proposed amendment should have been allowed on payment of costs. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that the respondents have produced death certificate depicting date of death of Bhani as 5.12.1996 whereas the plaintiffs have not produced any material on record to depict that Bhani had died 50 years ago. However, this contention cannot be accepted at this stage because the plaintiffs after proposed amendment would be entitled to lead evidence to prove their averments. Even if the proposed amendment is allowed, it would not mean that plaintiffs’ plea that Bhani had died 50 years ago would be deemed to have been accepted. On the other hand, even after proposed amendment is allowed, the plaintiffs have to prove the aforesaid plea by leading cogent evidence. Even if the proposed amendment is allowed, it would not mean that plaintiffs’ plea that Bhani had died 50 years ago would be deemed to have been accepted. On the other hand, even after proposed amendment is allowed, the plaintiffs have to prove the aforesaid plea by leading cogent evidence. Obviously the defendants would be entitled to rebut the evidence of the plaintiffs and to prove that Bhani had died on 5.12.1996 and the agreement in question is forged and fabricated. However, the proposed amendment cannot be disallowed merely because at this stage the plaintiffs have not placed any material on record in support of the proposed amendment that Bhani had died 50 years ago. 7. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 19.5.2009 passed by the learned trial court is set aside and application moved by the petitioners for amendment of plaint is allowed subject to payment of Rs 10,000/- as costs precedent. -------------------