Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
This petition is directed against the order dated 11.6.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chachoit at Gohar in Civil Suit No. 17/2012.
2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the “plaintiffs” for convenience sake) have instituted a Civil Suit No. 17/2012 against the petitioners-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the “defendants” for convenience sake) as well as proforma respondents-defendants, namely, Bhader Singh, Kumar Lal, Pushap Raj, Bhup Singh and Ramesh Kumar for declaration/confirmation of joint possession and injunction as a consequential relief. The plaintiffs moved an application under order 6 rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint. According to them, they came to know after the death of Sh. Heera in the month of September, 2012 that they have been disinherited from the entire suit property by way of “will” No. 200 dated 3.6.2005 According to them, the “will” was fictitious and forged document. The “will” was executed on the basis of influence exercised by the beneficiaries, i.e Chandermani, Bhikham Ram and Bhuvneshwar. It is further averred in the application that Sh. Heera was illiterate, bed ridden and ailing at the time of alleged “will”. He was hard of hearing. In view of this development, they sought amendment to the plaint in order to specifically challenge the “will” No. 200 dated 3.6.2005 executed in favour of Chandermani, Bhikham Ram and Bhuvneshwar by late Sh. Heera.
3. The application was contested by the defendants. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) allowed the same on 11.6.2013 Hence, the present petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.
5. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land, as detailed in the plaint, was ancestral and joint Hindu family coparcenary property. They were having legal right from birth in the suit property. The defendants were also joint owners of the suit property, which was in the name of the head of the entire family/Karta, Sh. Heera. The coparcenary property was recorded in the revenue record in the name of their grand-father Sh Heera. The plaintiffs have also challenged the sale deed No. 281 dated 29.6.2004 and sale deed No. 1 dated 1.1.2005 executed by Heera in favour of his son Chandermani and grand-sons Bhikham Ram and Bhuvneshwar measuring 9-8-1 bighas and 8-13-14 bighas.
6. Since the plaintiffs have been disinherited from the property on the basis of “will” dated 3.6.2005, the amendment of plaint was necessary to challenge the “will” specifically. As a matter of fact, the defendants have also admitted the execution of the “will” No. 200 dated 3.6.2005 The specific challenge to the “will” dated 3.6.2005 is necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties and will also prevent multiplicity of litigation. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chachoit at Gohar.
7. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.