JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) This revision petition has been filed by the respondents/defendants against the order dated 23.12.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kasauli in CMA No. 234/6 of 2013 in Civil Suit No. 90/1 of 2012 whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioners /plaintiffs has been allowed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that a suit was filed by original plaintiff late Smt. Santosh Devi, wife of Sh. Dharam Singh claiming that she is the only daughter of Shibi Devi and further claiming that Shibi Devi is the daughter of Budh Ram and the mutation of succession of Budh Ram was sanctioned vide mutation No. 487 dated 12.9.1957 in favour of Hasnu Devi widow of Budh Ram was challenged on the ground that mutation of succession should have been sanctioned in favour of Hasnu claiming to be 1st class legal heirs of Budh Ram, as such decree of declaration was claimed declaring plaintiff to be absolute owner of the suit land and challenging Will dated 2.6.1984 executed by Hasnu Devi in the name of Rakesh Kumar, defendant No.4 on the ground of fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation. The original plaintiff Santosh Devi died on 20.1.2013 and her legal representatives were brought on record vide order dated 1.8.2013. 3. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC challenging judgment and decree titled as Shibi vs. Husnu and others vide Civil Suit No. 86 decided on 16.9.1959 by Sub Judge 1st Class, Kandaghat, District Shimla with regard to succession of Budh Ram to be erroneous and not binding on the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs and further plea was raised that Husnu Devi was never married with Budh Ram during his life time and Husnu Devi is wrongly shown as wife of Budh Ram and has wrongly got estate of Budh Ram and further claiming defendants to be the son of Chet Ram is wrong, illegal and against the fact and thereby claiming half portion in the suit land. 4. 4. The said application was contested by the petitioners/ defendants on the ground of maintainability, limitation, estoppel as by way of same application the plaintiffs want to withdraw admission made earlier in the plaint, further judgment and decree at this belated stage is not open to be challenged which is binding upon the plaintiffs claiming to be successor of Shibi Devi. 5. In this revision it is alleged that the learned lower Court has illegally allowed the application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and thus have failed to exercise the jurisdiction not vested in it by law and has acted in exercise of his jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. It is claimed that the learned trial Court had failed to take into consideration that the amendment was time barred and could not have been allowed as the plaintiff was estopped from challenging judgment and decree titled as Shibi vs. Husnu and others vide Civil Suit No. 86 decided on 16.9.1959 by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Kandaghat, District Shimla. The suit filed by the Shibi Devi was contested on merits and plaintiff was claiming herself to be the daughter of Shibi Devi and, therefore, said judgment and decree is binding upon her and at this belated stage, the judgment and decree was not opened to be challenged. 6. It is claimed that by way of amendment, the plaintiffs want to withdraw the admission made in the plaint as in plaint, the plaintiff was claiming Husnu Devi to be the wife of Budh Ram, but in application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC status of Husnu Devi being wife of Budh Ram is challenged on the ground that Husnu Devi was not married to Budh Ram during his life time and Shibi Devi is daughter of Budh Ram from his wife late Brijo Devi, who expired in Vikrami Samwat 1975 and, therefore, this plea was totally contradictory to the earlier plea taken in the plaint. Such self contradictory plea cannot be taken in the suit. It was further contended that by way of amendment, the plaintiffs claimed that Nand Lal, Mansukh Lal and Jai Kishan are not sons of Chet Ram which is again in contradiction to the averments made in the original plaint where they are shown to be sons of Chet Ram. Such self contradictory plea cannot be taken in the suit. It was further contended that by way of amendment, the plaintiffs claimed that Nand Lal, Mansukh Lal and Jai Kishan are not sons of Chet Ram which is again in contradiction to the averments made in the original plaint where they are shown to be sons of Chet Ram. This again amounts to be withdrawal of admission which proves that the amendment was not bonafide. 7. I have given my deep and thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners. 8. A bare perusal of the application for amendment would show that the plaintiffs have sought the following amendments in the suit: “2-A. That the judgment and decree passed by learned Sib Judge 1st Class, Kandaghat, in Civil Suit No. 86 dated 15.9.1959 titled as Smt. Shibi versus Hasno etc. with regard to the succession of late Shri Budh Ram do not decide the controversy between the parties effectively and conclusively and left open question of adoption of Nand Lal and similarly question of status of late Smt. Shibi Devi daughter of Shri Budh Ram and as such the aforesaid judgment and decree is erroneous to the facts and circumstances between the parties and is not binding in the right, title and interest of the plaintiff and the same deserves to be ignored. The judgment and decree aforesaid has not concluded the controversy between the parties once for all and therefore also do not attract the provisions of Section 11 of C.P.C. It is submitted here that Smt. Shibi Devi who was the daughter of late Shri Budh Ram from his wife late Smt. Brijo Devi who had expired in Bikrami Sambat 1975. Smt. Hasno Devi was never married by Shri Budh Ram during his life time and Smt. Hasno Devi shown to be wife of Shri Budh Ram in the revenue record has also wrongly inherited the estate of Shri Budh Ram. Since Smt. Hasno Devi was not the wife of late Shri Budh Ram and she has also succeeded his estate in connivance with the revenue authorities by recording her status to be his widow. Since Smt. Hasno Devi was not the wife of late Shri Budh Ram and she has also succeeded his estate in connivance with the revenue authorities by recording her status to be his widow. The civil suit so filed by Smt. Shibi Devi was also not properly filed since she was illiterate and was unable to explain her position before her pleader and therefore her right was not properly represented before the Court and as such the judgment so passed by the Court is also devoid of reasoning and not based on facts. The mutation No. 150 sanctioned in favour of Shri Nand Lal defendant No.2 in the year 1957-58 on the basis of alleged adoption by Shri Budh Ram is also wrong, illegal, null and void as Shri Budh Ram never adopted Shri Nand Lal as his son during his life time. The status of Shri Nand Lal, Mansukh Lal, Shri Jai Kishan shown to be the sons of late Shri Chet Ram in the revenue record is also wrong and against the fact. Shri Chet Ram had expired in the year 1939 corresponding to Bikrami Sambat 1996 and S/Sh. Nand Lal, Mansukh Lal and Shri Jai Kishan are born after the year1940 and therefore the defendants have manipulated the facts and revenue records in order to grab the right of plaintiff’s predecessors in interest namely Smt. Shibi Devi. The plaintiffs being successor in interest of Smt. Shibi Devi thus were the sole successor of late Shri Budh Ram and the entire entries in the revenue record contrary to this are wrong, illegal,null and void and are not binding on the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs. Similarly in prayer clause, the plaintiff intends to make following addition after the word to the extent of: “1/2 share i.e. 84.00 bighas”. Further in prayer clause after the word whatsoever as under: “The mutation No. 150 sanctioned in favour of Shri Nand Lal, defendant No.2 in the year 1957-58 on the basis of alleged adoption by Shri Budh Ram is also wrong, illegal, null and void as Shri Budh Ram never adopted Shri Nand Lal as his son during his life time and is not binding on the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs”. 9. 9. No doubt, the plaintiffs had tried to rake up certain controversy regarding Smt. Shibi Devi not being the daughter of Budh Ram from his wife Smt. Brijo Devi and that Smt. Husno Devi having not married to Budh Ram during his life time etc. However, the fact nonetheless remains that the proposed amendment will have to be read alongwith paras 1 and 2 of the original plaint, which reads as under: “1. That one Shri Dhani Ram was owner of the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 2/6 min, Kitas 68, measuring 166-12 bighas, situated in mauza Chhatera, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) who had two sons namely Kirpa Ram and Budh Ram. Shri Kirpa Ram had expired in the year 1928 while Shri Budh Ram expired in the year 1957. The estate of late Shri Dhani Ram was succeeded by both these two brothers in equal share. The pedigree table of late Shri Dhani Ram is as hereunder: Dhani Ram | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- High Court of H.P. | | Kirpa Ram Budh Ram | | Chet Ram ------------------------------- | | | Hasno Devi (widow) Shibi Devi (daughter) | | | | | Mansukh Lal Nand Lal Jai Kishan Rakesh Kumar Santosh Devi 2. That Shri Budh Ram predecessor in interest of the present plaintiff expired in the year 1957 leaving behind him his wife Smt. Hasno Devi and only daughter Smt. Shibi Devi. The mutation of succession of late Shri Budh Ram was wrongly attested by the revenue authorities on 12.09.1957 as mutation No. 487 in the name of Smt. Hasno Devi ignoring the right, title and interest of predecessor in interest of plaintiff Smt. Shibi Devi. It is submitted here that the mutation of succession of late Shri Budh Ram should have been sanctioned in the name of both Smt. Hasno Devi and Smt. Shibi Devi in equal share as at the time of death of late Shri Budh Ram, these two were only first class legal heir. Shri Budh Ram had no male child and at the time of attestation of mutation, Hindu Succession Act had come into being and as such the mutation No. 487 dated 12.09.1957 is totally wrong, illegal and null and void and is not binding on the right, title and interest of the plaintiff.” 10. Shri Budh Ram had no male child and at the time of attestation of mutation, Hindu Succession Act had come into being and as such the mutation No. 487 dated 12.09.1957 is totally wrong, illegal and null and void and is not binding on the right, title and interest of the plaintiff.” 10. The averments made in para 2-A have to be read alongwith paras 1 and 2 of the unamended plaint as the plaintiffs had not sought deletion of the averments made in paras 1 and 2, but had sought only the addition and incorporation in the existing plaint by way of insertion of para 2-A. 11. In so far as the claim of Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners that the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 86 decided on 16.9.1959 has been challenged, I am afraid that no such relief has been claimed either in the un-amended plaint nor by way of amendment, impugned before this Court. 12. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners with respect to the admissions made in the original plaint being permitted to be withdrawn by way of the present amendment, I am afraid that this contention too is not available to the petitioners because of the simple reason that the respondents have only sought to make additional averments in the existing plaint by incorporating para 2-A therein, no part of the pleading as was contained in the original or un-amended plaint has either been withdrawn or permitted to be withdrawn. Therefore, in case there were any admissions existing in the unamended or original plaint, the same continues to exist even in the amended plaint. 13. In view of above discussion, I find no infirmity with the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 23.12.2013 and the same is upheld and accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.