Judgment Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Petitioner is the plaintiff in the trial Court. He has instituted the suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against deceased-defendant Paras Ram. Deceased Paras Ram died during the pendency of the suit on 3rd June, 2007. The plaintiff had taken consequential steps and Smt. Sumanu, widow of deceased-defendant, was substituted as his legal representative in the suit. Later on, plaintiff, however, came to know that the deceased Paras Ram had executed a will in favour of Smt. Sumanu, aforesaid, and one Sundru. Since Sumanu was already impleaded as defendant in the suit, being legal representative of deceased Paras Ram, therefore, plaintiff field a separate application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, registered as CMA No. 45-VI/2010 for impleadment of Sundru as defendant in the suit and also allow her to amend the plaint, challenging therein the will executed by deceased defendant Paras Ram in her favour and in favour of Sumanu. It is this application which has been dismissed vide the order impugned in this petition on the ground that plaintiff has failed to take due diligence. 2. In this case, the learned trial Court has taken note of a suggestion put to the plaintiff on 31.7.2008 during the course of her cross examination that deceased Paras Ram had executed a will in the names of Sumanu, Sundru, Kuldeep Chand, Hemant and Bhupender and has observed in the impugned order that irrespective of acquired the knowledge of execution of the will on 31.7.2008, she failed to seek amendment in the plaint immediately thereafter in this behalf and as such, the application being belated, has been dismissed vide order impugned in this petition. 3. Learned trial Court should not have arrived at the conclusion hereinabove only on the basis of a suggestion given to the plaintiff that there exists some will for the reason that the plaintiff could have taken consequential steps, challenging the will by way of seeking amendment in the plaint only on coming to know that such will actually is in existence and procuring its copy etc. Therefore, much weightage could not have been given to such suggestion put to the plaintiff on 31.7.2008, rather in the interest of justice as well as for complete and effective adjudication of the controversy, this aspect should have been liberally construed and a pragmatic approach adopted in the matter and consequently the plaintiff given an opportunity to amend the plaint and also implead Sundru one of the beneficiaries of the will as party defendant in the main suit. 4. True it is, that there is delay on the part of the plaintiff in seeking amendment in the plaint, however, the same could have been taken care of by allowing the amendment subject to payment of costs to the petitioners to compensate them. 5. Therefore, in the ends of justice and also for the effective and complete adjudication of the controversy, I quash the order impugned in this petition and allow the amendment, as is now being sought in the plaint, of-course on payment of costs, which in the given circumstances is quantified at Rs.5,000/-. The same shall be shared by two sets of defendants, i.e. Kuldeep Chand, respondent No.3, Sumanu (since dead), hence her legal representatives, Hemant and Bhupinder Kumar, respondents No. 1(a) and 1(b) on one side equally. The petitioner-plaintiff to file amended plaint in the trial Court on the next date. The parties to appear before the trial Court on 23rd May, 2014. 6. A copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Court Master, be sent to the trial Judge for being taken on record for compliance. 7. The petition stands disposed of.