ORDER : P.S. Rana, J. 1. Present civil revision is filed against order dated 27.3.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 1 Paonta Sahib District Sirmaur (H.P.) in Civil Suit No. 113/1 of 2008 whereby learned Trial Court dismissed application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by Saroj widow of deceased Shri Achhar Singh and minor sons of deceased Achhar Singh namely Pankaj, Neeraj, Harpreet. Brief facts of the case 2. Shri Achhar Singh deceased son of Shri Ranjit Singh filed civil suit for declaration to the effect that deceased plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 48/88 min Khasra No. 114 measuring 1-19 bighas situated in mauja Kishanpura Tehsil Paonta Sahib District Sirmaur H.P. and sale deed dated 24.5.2008 regarding suit land is null and void being fraudulent without consideration. It is pleaded that codefendant No. 2 has executed sale deed in favour of codefendant No.1 as general attorney dated 31.3.2008 which is also null and void and is fraudulent. It is pleaded that sale deed and general power of attorney documents are not binding upon rights of deceased plaintiff. It is pleaded that mutation No. 1009 dated 11.6.2008 attested on the basis of sale deed dated 24.5.2008 is also null and void and is not binding upon legal rights of deceased plaintiff. Consequential relief of permanent injunction also sought restraining defendants from interfering, dispossessing, alienating and encumbering the land measuring 19 biswas through their agents, servants or legal representatives. During pendency of civil suit Achhar Singh died and his LRs namely Smt. Saroj Devi widow and minor sons namely Pankaj aged 9 years, Neeraj aged 7 years, Harpreet aged 5 years brought on record as codefendants on dated 27.5.2014. Newly impleaded LRs filed application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint on dated 24.3.2015. Learned Trial Court dismissed application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on dated 27.3.2015. Feeling aggrieved against order dated 27.03.2015 widow of deceased and minor sons of deceased filed present revision petition. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendants pleaded therein that suit is not maintainable and deceased plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit due to his own act conduct and acquiescence to file present suit. It is pleaded that plaintiff has no cause of action. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendants pleaded therein that suit is not maintainable and deceased plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit due to his own act conduct and acquiescence to file present suit. It is pleaded that plaintiff has no cause of action. It is pleaded that on 31.1.2008 a verbal agreement of sale was entered between deceased plaintiff and defendant No.1 for sale of 1-19 bighas of land in consideration amount of Rs.6,25,000/- (Rupees six lacs twenty five thousand). It is pleaded that on 31.1.2008 defendant No. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to deceased plaintiff vide cheque and thereafter on 31.1.2008 codefendant No.1 paid another amount of Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupess two lacs twenty five thousand) to deceased plaintiff at his residence in village Bhatanwali Tehsil Paonta Sahib. It is pleaded that after receiving Rs. three lacs as sale consideration amount from the defendant No.1 it was decided that plaintiff would execute a general power of attorney in favour of trusted person of codefendant No.1. It is pleaded that thereafter plaintiff volunatarily executed general power of attorney in favour of sister of co-defendant No.1. It is pleaded that general power of attorney was duly executed in accordance with law. It is admitted that co-defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are real brother and sister. 4. As per pleadings of parties following issues framed by learned Trial Court on 10.12.2009:- 1. Whether deceased plaintiff is co-owner in joint possession of the suit land measuring 1-19 bighas along with other co-sharers as alleged in para No. 1 of the plaint If so its effect? ….OPP 2. Whether GPA dated 31.3.2008 relied upon by defendant No.1 and alleged to have been executed in favour of defendant No. 2 is result of fraud and misrepresentation and without consideration as alleged? …..OPP 3. Whether sale deed dated 24.5.2008 is result of fraud and collusion inter se the defendants and without consideration and as such illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of deceased plaintiff as alleged? ….OPP 4. Whether transaction of sale is unconscious and sham transaction as alleged? ….OPP 5. Whether deceased plaintiff and codefendants were having close relations and intimacy with each other and deceased plaintiff used to act as per the advice of co-defendant No.1 as alleged in para No. 3 of the plaint? …OPP 6. ….OPP 4. Whether transaction of sale is unconscious and sham transaction as alleged? ….OPP 5. Whether deceased plaintiff and codefendants were having close relations and intimacy with each other and deceased plaintiff used to act as per the advice of co-defendant No.1 as alleged in para No. 3 of the plaint? …OPP 6. Whether deceased plaintiff on dated 31.1.2008 entered into a verbal agreement of sale with co-defendant No.1 about the land measuring 1-19 bighas for Rs.6,25,000/- (Rupees six lac twenty five thousand) as alleged? …..OPD 7. Whether co-defendant No. 1 paid Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) on 31.1.2008 as part payment of sale consideration to deceased plaintiff through cheque as alleged? ….OPD 8. Whether co-defendant No.1 on 31.3.2008 paid Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees two lacs seventy five thousand) to deceased plaintiff as alleged in para 5 of written statement? ……OPD 9. Whether deceased plaintiff executed GPA after receiving Rs. three lacs from codefendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 regarding the land measuring 1-19 bighas if so its effect? ….OPD 10. Whether sale deed dated 26.5.2008 has been executed by co-defendant No. 2 in favour of co-defendant No.1 after taking Rs. three lacs by deceased plaintiff from co-defendant No.1 as alleged if so its effect? ….OPD 11. Whether defendant No.1 is in possession of land measuring 0-19 bighas? ….OPD 12. Whether suit is not maintainable as alleged in para No. 6 of preliminary objections of written statement? ….OPD 13. Whether deceased plaintiff has got no cause of action? ….OPD 14. Whether deceased plaintiff is estopped from filing of suit? ….OPD 15. Whether deceased plaintiff has suppressed material facts from the knowledge of learned Court? ….OPD 16. Relief. 5. Thereafter learned Trial Court recorded evidence of parties and thereafter case was listed for arguments by learned Trial Court. On dated 14.5.2014 learned Advocate for the plaintiff informed learned Trial Court that plaintiff has died. Thereafter application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC was filed and same was allowed by learned Trial Court on 27.5.2014 and (1) Saroj Devi widow (2) Master Pankaj son of Achhar Singh aged 9 years, (3) Master Neeraj son of Achhar Singh aged 7 years (4) Master Harpreet son of Achhar Singh aged 5 years were imp leaded as legal representatives of deceased Achhar Singh in present civil suit as co-plaintiffs. Thereafter imp leaded legal representatives of deceased filed application under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act for permitting the legal representatives of deceased to lead secondary evidence to prove photo state copy of agreement of sale dated 31.3.2008 executed between deceased Achhar Singh and co-defendant No.1 Gurvinder Singh. Learned Trial Court on 13.10.2014 dismissed application filed under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. Thereafter Smt. Saroj Devi and others filed civil revision No. 178 of 2014 titled Saroj Devi and others vs. Gurvinder Singh and another before Hon’ble High Court and same was disposed of by Hon’ble High Court of H.P. on 24.2.2015 and dismissed the revision petition filed by Saroj Devi and others. Hon’ble High Court of H.P. further directed that it would be open to the revisionists Smt. Saroj Devi and others to file application before learned Trial Court to avail all remedies available under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Thereafter Smt. Saroj Devi and others filed application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of plaint. There is recital in application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC that deceased Achhar Singh died on 11.4.2014 leaving behind his widow and minor children as his legal heirs. It is pleaded in application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC that new fact came to knowledge of legal representatives on 22.9.2014 when widow of Achhar Singh namely Saroj Devi found a photo state copy in box where deceased Achhar Singh used to keep documents. It is pleaded that as per agreement of sale dated 31.3.2008 executed between deceased Achhar Singh and Gurvinder Singh deceased Achhar Singh agreed to sell five biswas of land in sale consideration amount of Rs. 22,5,000/- (Rupees two lacs twenty five thousand) on 31.3.2008. It is pleaded that agreement of sale relating to five biswas of land and general power of attorney in favour of co-defendant No. 2 who is sister of co-defendant No.1 were executed on same date i.e. 31.3.2008. It is pleaded that deceased plaintiff used to remain under the influence of liquor and he could not produce photo state copy of agreement of sale dated 31.3.2008 to his learned Advocate at the time of filing of suit. It is pleaded that deceased plaintiff used to remain under the influence of liquor and he could not produce photo state copy of agreement of sale dated 31.3.2008 to his learned Advocate at the time of filing of suit. It is pleaded that legal representatives of deceased Achhar are illiterate, rustic villagers and Smt. Saroj Devi is widow of deceased Achhar and Pankaj, Neeraj and Harpreet aged 9, 7 and 5 years respectively are minors. It is pleaded that if copy of agreement of sale dated 31.3.2008 is permitted to be placed on record then same would not change the nature of suit and amendment is essential in the ends of justice and prayer for acceptance of application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC sought. 7. Response on behalf of defendants filed pleaded therein that application is not maintainable. It is pleaded that civil suit is listed for arguments and proposed amendment is destructive plea. It is pleaded that if proposed amendment is allowed then entire nature of suit would be changed. It is pleaded that as per amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC w.e.f. 1.7.2002 application for amendment is not maintainable after commencement of trial. Prayer for dismissal of application sought. 8. Learned Trial Court dismissed application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC by widow and minor sons of deceased Achhar Singh on 27.3.2015. 9. Feeling aggrieved against order of learned Trial Court Saroj Devi widow and minors Pankaj, Neeraj and Harpreet filed present revision petition. 10. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of parties and Court also perused entire record carefully. 11. Following points arise for determination in civil revision petition:- 1. Whether revision petition filed by revisionists widow of deceased Achhar Singh and minor sons of deceased Achhar Singh is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition? 2. Relief. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionists that proposed amendment could not be filed before commencement of trial because copy of agreement dated 31.3.2008 was found on 22.9.2014 after death of Achhar Singh in a box and keeping in view the fact that revisionists are widow and minors sons and are rustic villagers and on this ground proposed amendment be allowed in the ends of justice is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that proposed amendment application is filed by widow who is rustic villager and minors namely Master Pankaj aged 9 years, Master Neeraj aged 7 years and Master Harpreet aged 5 years. It is well settled law that Courts are under legal obligation to protect the interest of minors. Court is of the opinion that Court can take judicial notice of subsequent events in civil suit. Tracing of copy of agreement of sale dated 31.3.2008 qua 0-5 biswas of land on 22.9.2014 is a subsequent event. It is well settled law that Court can take judicial notice of subsequent event in civil judicial proceedings. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionists that proposed amendment is contradictory to original plaint and same should not be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. In present case it is proved on record that alleged general power of attorney in favour of co-defendant No.2 who is real sister of codefendant No.1 was executed on 31.3.2008 and proposed agreement of sale was also executed on 31.3.2008 between deceased Achhar Singh and Gurvinder Singh. Court has carefully perused the contents of agreement dated 31.3.2008 executed between deceased Achhar Singh and co-defendant No. 1 Gurvinder Singh. There is recital in agreement dated 31.3.2008 that deceased Achhar Singh agreed to alienate five biswas of land in favour of Gurvinder Singh in consideration amount of Rs.22,5,000/- (Rupees two lacs twenty five thousand) on 31.3.2008. There is document on record that similarly on 31.3.2008 general power of attorney was executed in favour of co-defendant No.2 who is real sister of codefendant No.1. It is proved on record that co-defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are real brother and sister. It is proved on record that thereafter co-defendant No. 2 who is real sister of co-defendant No. 1 has executed sale deed on the basis of general power of attorney in favour of her brother i.e. co-defendant No.1 in consideration amount of Rs. three lacs relating to 19 biswas of land and sale deed executed by co-defendant No.2 in favour of co-defendant No.1 is in dispute in present civil suit. 14. In present case one fact is proved that Smt. Jasbir Kaur who is real sister of co-defendant No.1 Gurvinder Singh has executed sale deed in favour of her brother on the basis of general power of attorney. 14. In present case one fact is proved that Smt. Jasbir Kaur who is real sister of co-defendant No.1 Gurvinder Singh has executed sale deed in favour of her brother on the basis of general power of attorney. It is also proved on record that no consideration amount of sale was paid before Sub Registrar and there is recital in sale deed that vendor has received full and final consideration amount of Rs. three lacs from vendee. In present case no receipt of consideration amount signed by Achhar Singh placed on record. Court is of the opinion that proposed amendment is not destructive to original pleadings and in view of issues framed by learned Trial Court. Court is of the opinion that proposed amendment is subsequent event and is essential in order to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings inter se parties. Court is of the opinion that opportunity would be granted to defendants to file amended written statement by learned Trial Court and due opportunities would be granted to defendants to adduce rebuttal evidence in accordance with law. It is well settled law that Court can take judicial notice of subsequent events. See AIR 1973 SC 171 title M/s M. Laxmi & Company vs. Dr. Anant R. Deshpande and another. See AIR 2001 SC 699 title Ragu Thilak D. John vs. S. Rayappan and others. AIR 2002 SC 1148 title Fritiz T.M. Clement vs. Sudhakaran. See AIR 1983 SC 43 title Harcharan vs. State of Haryana. See AIR 1981 SC 485 title Suraj Prakash Bhasin vs. Smt. Raj Rani. See AIR 1966 SC 997 title Nichhalbhai Vallabhai and others vs. Jaswantlal Zinabhai and others. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionists that proposed amendment application is filed when case was listed for final arguments at belated stage and on this ground revision petition be dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that co-revisionists No. 2 to 4 namely Master Pankaj aged 9 years, Master Neeraj aged 7 years and Master Harpreet aged 5 years are minors and it is well settled law that law of limitation is not applicable on minors and it is well settled law that law of limitation remains in abeyance upon minors. It is proved on record that co-revisionists No. 2 to 4 namely Master Pankaj aged 9 years, Master Neeraj aged 7 years and Master Harpreet aged 5 years are minors and it is well settled law that law of limitation is not applicable on minors and it is well settled law that law of limitation remains in abeyance upon minors. In view of the fact that co-revisionist No. 1 is widow of deceased Acchar Singh plaintiff and is rustic villager and in view of the fact that co-revisionists Nos. 2 to 4 namely Master Pankaj aged 9 years, Master Neeraj aged 7 years and Master Harpreet aged 5 years are minors it is not expedient in the ends of justice to decline the proposed amendment filed by minors simply on ground that proposed amendment was filed when civil suit was listed for final arguments. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionists that proposed amendment filed on the basis of photo state agreement dated 31.3.2008 and photo state document is not primary document and on this ground revision petition be dismissed is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Hon’ble H.P. High Court in civil revision No. 178 of 2014 decided on 24.2.2015 held that it would be open to the revisionists to move the learned Trial Court to avail all remedies as available to them under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. Hon’ble H.P. High Court permitted the revisionists to avail all remedies available to them under Code of Civil Procedure. Remedy under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is available to revisionists under the Code of Civil Procedure. Even as per amended provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC amendment can be allowed after commencement of trial if Court comes to conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not raise the matter before commencement of trial. In present case revisionists could not raise the matter before commencement of trial because before commencement of trial revisionists namely Saroj Devi and minors namely Master Pankaj aged 9 years, Master Neeraj aged 7 years and Master Harpreet aged 5 years were not party in civil suit No. 113/1 of 2008 and revisionists were imp leaded as co-party in civil suit after death of Achhar Singh who died on 11.4.2014. It is held that right to file application for amendment is accrued to revisionists when revisionists were imp leaded as co-party on 27.5.2015 by learned Trial Court under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC. Revisionists filed application on 24.3.2015. It is held that no prejudice would be caused to defendants if proposed amendment is allowed and it is held that due opportunity would be granted to defendants to file amended written statement and to adduce rebuttal evidence. It is held that defendants could be compensated with costs for filing proposed amendment at the stage of arguments. In view of above stated facts it is held that proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionists that Hon’ble High Court rejected civil revision No. 178 of 2014 on 24.2.2015 relating to secondary evidence qua agreement dated 31.3.2008 and on this ground present revision petition be also dismissed is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is held that Hon’ble High Court has rejected civil revision No. 178 of 2014 but specifically mentioned in order passed in CR No. 178 of 2014 that revisionists would be at liberty to avail all other remedies available to them under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. Hence it is held that Hon’ble High Court of H.P. had given liberty to revisionists to file another application before learned Trial Court under Code of Civil Procedure 1908. In view of the fact that Hon’ble High Court of H.P. vide order dated 24.2.2015 permitted the revisionists to file another application under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. It is held that subsequent application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is not barred in view of order passed in Civil revision No. 178 of 2014 by H.P. High Court. It is held that application filed under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 and application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC are two distinct applications. Point No.1 is answered in affirmative. Point No. 2 (Relief) 18. In view of findings upon point No.1 civil revision petition is allowed. Order of learned Trial Court dated 27.3.2015 is set aside. It is held that application filed under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 and application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC are two distinct applications. Point No.1 is answered in affirmative. Point No. 2 (Relief) 18. In view of findings upon point No.1 civil revision petition is allowed. Order of learned Trial Court dated 27.3.2015 is set aside. Proposed application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is allowed in order to avoid multiplicity of judicial proceedings inter se parties and in view of the fact that co-revisionist Saroj Devi is illiterate rustic villager and is widow and in view of the fact that other co-revisionists Nos. 2 to 4 namely Master Pankaj aged 9 years, Master Neeraj aged 7 years and Master Harpreet aged 5 years are minors. As application filed at belated stage when civil suit was listed for arguments costs to the tune of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) is also imposed. Parties are directed to appear before learned Trial Court on 24.10.2016. Observations will not effect the merits of case and will be strictly confined for disposal of present civil revision petition. Record of learned Trial Court be sent back forthwith along with certified copy of order. Revision petition is disposed of. All pending miscellaneous applications if any also stands disposed of.