DALELA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 22. 9. 93 passed by the learned D. J. , Sri Ganganagar, whereby the application of the plaintiff-petitioners under 0. 6 Rule 17 CPC has been rejected.
(2.) IT seems that the plaintiff-petitioners moved the lower court for issue of a succession certificate. Now, they want to amend their application for grant of succession certificate on the basis of a will executed by the deceased. It seems that earlier some of the plaintiff-petitioners moved an application on 24. 1. 91 for amendment of their main application. Later-on, on 15. 1. 93, that application was withdrawn and on the same day, a fresh application was moved on behalf of all the plaintiff-petitioners for amendment of the main application on the basis of the will. The learned lower Court dismissed the application under 0. 6 Rule 17 CPC on the ground that the amendment would change the nature of the case and that the plaintiff-petitioners were negligent in making the amendment application so late because they had prior knowledge of existence of the will. Against that order, this revision petition has been preferred. I have heard the arguments. The view of the learned lower court that by allowing the amendment sought-for, the nature of the case will undergo a change, seems to be erroneous because the basic claim of the plaintiff-petitioners is for grant of a succession certificate and by the proposed amendment, an additional ground for their claim is sought to be brought on record. A succession certificate on the basis of a will is not incompetent. The basic claim of the petitioners for grant of succession certificate does not undergo any change, in case the will is also taken into consideration for ascertaining the competency of the petitioners to claim a succession certificate in their favour.
(3.) IN Smt. Mooli Bai vs. Smt. Dhapi Bai (1), the existence of a will has been considered to be no bar to grant of succession certificate. Therefore, in my opinion, by the amendment, the nature of the case or the claim of the petitioners does not undergo a change. It is true that the application is delayed one and has caused inconvenience to the opposite party but the amendment may not be refused on technical grounds of delay or malafide or even if it is found that there was negligence. In Kareem Bux vs. Board of Muslim Wakfs Raj. & Ors. (2), it has been held that mere delay cannot disentitle a party seeking amendment. It has further been held that the amendment should not be disallowed on account of negligence on the part of party or his counsel. In the interest of substantial justice, I am of the view that the amendment should be allowed and the opposite party i. e. respondents should be compensated with the suitable cost for the inconvenience caused to them by the amendment application. I think a cost of Rs. one thousand would meet the ends of justice in the matter. ;