ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission as well as for final disposal of this petition. 2. On behalf of the petitioner -non applicant No. 1, this petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 2.7.2013, passed by the 11th Civil Judge, Class-I, Jabalpur in Succession Case No. 60/12, whereby its application dated 2.7.2013 filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC, (Ann. P-7) for amendment in the original reply (W.S.) as consequential amendment in response of the amendment of the respondents No. 1 to 5 has been dismissed. 3. Having heard the counsel at length, keeping in view their arguments, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on record. 4. As per initial case of the respondents No. 1 to 5, they have filed the impugned case under section 374 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of succession certificate with respect of the terminal benefits of the deceased Nandram Rawat, their predecessor-in-title against the present petitioner and respondent No. 7, Smt. Gyan Bai Rawat, who is also claiming to be the wife of said Nand Ram Rawat. In response of aforesaid application on behalf of the petitioner reply (W.S.) was filed. As per its contention, according to the Railways record unless dispute between the alleged different widows of the deceased is decided by the competent Court no pensionary benefit could be extended to any of them and with other averments, the prayer to pass appropriate order was made in such reply. 5. Respondent No. 7 has also filed reply contending that subsequent to marriage with Nand Ram Rawat, she was divorced and since last 30 years, she is residing separately but has claimed the right in the aforesaid terminal and pensionary benefits of the deceased. 6. After filing aforesaid WS, on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5 an application dated 16.7.2012 under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the original application was filed. The same was allowed. As per such amendment, the respondent No. 1, Meera Bai is stated her name as @ Mamtarani also but the same was noted in the Railways Department as different person Meera Bai and Mamta Bai while both are the same, who is respondent No.1. 7. Subsequent to allowing the aforesaid application, the respondents No. 1 to 5 have filed another amendment application dated 24.4.2013. 7. Subsequent to allowing the aforesaid application, the respondents No. 1 to 5 have filed another amendment application dated 24.4.2013. The same was allowed whereby it was inserted that name of respondent No. 3 is Ramdulari @ Gyan Bai because after marriage she became Ramdulari. 8. In view of aforesaid amended part on behalf of the petitioner the impugned application to clarify the position, so also proposed consequential amendment in the reply was filed but on consideration the same has been dismissed. 9. In the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the considered view that the impugned application was filed on behalf of the petitioner to propose the consequential amendment, in response of the amendment of the respondents No. 1 to 5 in the original application. In any case such proposed amendment has been filed on behalf of the petitioner on the basis of subsequent event which has come into existence on carrying out the amendment by respondents No. 1 to 5 in original application in pendency of the impugned proceeding. In view of settled proposition of law the consequential amendment and the amendment based on the subsequent event in pendency of the proceeding should be allowed in normal course. In such premises, on examining the matter, I have found that the trial Court has committed grave error in dismissing the application of amendment of the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. Pursuant to it, by allowing this petition, the impugned amendment application of the petitioner is allowed and the petitioner’s counsel is directed to carry out necessary correction in its reply filed before the trial Court within fifteen days from the first appearance of the parties in compliance of this order before the trial Court. The parties present are directed to appear in the trial Court firstly on dated 2.12.2013, so also on other dates which are fixed by the Court to carry out further proceeding in the matter.