RAJESH BINDAL,J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to order dated May 9, 2006 passed by the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ludhiana whereby application filed by the petitioners-defendants for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed.
(2.) THIS is an unfortunate dispute between the brothers/their family. The deceased Amarjit Singh Bhullar, who is now represented by his sons filed a suit for possession of room measuring 15' X 10' alongwith Chaubhara measuring 15' X 10' forming part of property bearing Municipal No. 2411/1 Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana and for decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners- defendants from making any alternation, damaging or from changing nature and from transferring possession of the property in any manner whatsoever. In the suit, it was alleged by the respondents-plaintiffs that they are owners of property measuring 70.4/9 sq. yards bearing Municipal No. 2411/1, Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana. The claim was made on the basis of sale deed dated July 5, 1985 executed in his favour by his mother Smt. Tejwant Kaur. In the written statement filed, the petitioners-defendants claimed that they are owners of the property jointly with all the brothers and sisters as Smt. Tejwant Kaur died intestate. Therefore, respondents-plaintiffs became owner of 1/4th share of the property in dispute and other sons and daughters are entitled to other 3/4th share. It was further submitted that the sale deed dated July 5, 1985 is without any consideration and is a forged document as there was no question of registration of the sale deed for a consideration by the mother in favour of one son when the mother was having sufficient means to maintain herself and infact was living with the petitioners-defendants. Other litigation is also pending between the family members claiming ownership of the property taking one plea or the other. In the written statement initially filed by the petitioners-defendants, no plea regarding execution of a registered will dated July 5, 1985 was taken by them as they were not in knowledge thereof. It was during the course of evidence that Jagtar Singh, PW-1, Document Writer, in his cross examination had brought his document register and on examination thereof, counsel for the petitioners-defendants found that at Sr. No. 58 on July 5, 1985, there was an entry of sale deed and at Sr. No. 59 on the same date, an entry was regarding execution of a Will by Smt. Tejwant Kaur widow of Capt. Tarlochan Labh Singh in favour of petitioner no. 1 and other brother Baljit Singh. During the cross examination the witness submitted that the aforesaid Will was regarding the same house, which was in dispute in the present suit. By virtue of the Will, the petitioners-defendants had become owner of suit property to the extent of = share instead of 1/4th share as claimed in the written statement already filed. Having come to know about this fact, petitioners moved an application on March 17, 2006 seeking amendment of the written statement, which was objected to by the respondents- plaintiffs. On consideration of plea, prayer made by the petitioners- defendants, learned trial court dismissed the same primarily on the reason that application was belated and secondly that it was going to change the nature of the suit.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the paper book.;