Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 925 (HP)

Manjeet Kumar v. Krishan Chand

2018-05-18

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J —Order dated 7.3.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) , Baijnath, District Kangra in an application under Order 6 Rule 17 (Civil Suit No. 107 of 2016) is under challenge in this petition. 2. Petitioner herein is one of the defendants (defendant No. 2) . The respondents No.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs in the trial Court. They have filed the suit (plaint Annexure A-1) for seeking declaration that ''Will'' dated 14.2.1995 purported to be executed by deceased Rama Ram bequeathing thereby the property i.e. land entered in Khata No. 79, Khatauni No. 169, 170, Kita 19, measuring 00-61-75 hectares situated at Mahol Matian Khurd, Khata No. 60, Khatuani No. 128, Kita, measuring 00-36-96 Hects. situated at Mohal Matial Kala; Khata No. 75min, Khatauni No. 161, Khasra No. 297, measuring 00-00-90 hects. Situated at Mohal Matial Khurd, Khata no. 10 Min, Kita 3, measuring 00-02- 88 Hects., Khata No. 107, Khatauni No. 263, 264 Kita 5, measuring 00-07-49 hects. situated at Mohal Chadhiar Khas and Khata No. 10 Min, Khatauni No. 27Min, Khasra Nos. 4, 9 and 10 Kita 3, measuring 00-02-88 Hects, situated at Mohal Thehad Burli is a forged and fictitious document. The suit property being the property of joint hindu family and the parties governed by the Mitakshara school of hindu law, as such, are entitled to inherit the same by way of succession. 3. On filing of written statement and replication etc. the suit according to learned counsel for the petitioner presently is at the stage of framing issues meaning thereby that trial is not yet commenced. The plaintiffs before that have filed the application for amendment in the plaint on the ground that the husband of plaintiff No. 2 (Sudershan Kumar) when recently went to Dharamshala came to know from Shri J.S. Rana Advocate, who had been representing deceased Rama Ram in the litigation instituted by or against him after inquiring well being of said Shri Rama Ram and on this said Sudershan Kumar having disclosed the factum of death of Rama Ram, Mr. Rana disclosed that the deceased during his life time has executed a ''Will'' on 22.10.2015. it is said Shri J.S. Rana Advocate supplied a copy of the ''Will'' also to Sudershan Kumar. Rana disclosed that the deceased during his life time has executed a ''Will'' on 22.10.2015. it is said Shri J.S. Rana Advocate supplied a copy of the ''Will'' also to Sudershan Kumar. The plaintiffs allegedly produced the ''Will'' before the defendants and made an effort to settle the dispute at pre-litigation stage before lok adalat but of no avail as they refused to admit the said document and it is thereafter the application came to be filed for seeking amendment in the plaint. 4. This Court at this stage is not concerned as to whether the ''Will'' now propounded by the plaintiffs is a genuine document or not. However, when it is brought to the notice of the Court and that too at a stage when the trial is not yet commenced, the factum of existence thereof is essentially required to be brought on record and for that the amendment in the plaint is necessary. In the event of this document is ignored and the prayer for amendment in the plaint is refused, it may result in multiplicity of litigations and the other legal complications more serious in nature in due course of time. In that event the controversy between the parties cannot also be decided more effectively and judiciously. Above all, the petitioner(defendant) shall have the opportunity to file written statement to the amended plaint and also the right of being heard in due course. Therefore, no prejudice is likely to be caused to them by allowing the prayer made by the plaintiffs for amendment in the plaint. 5. Therefore, learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity while allowing the application for amendment of the plaint. The present petition being devoid of any merit is, therefore, dismissed. 6. Pending application(s) , if any, shall also stand disposed of. 7. An authenticated copy of this judgment be supplied to learned trial Court for record. Copy Dasti.