***

DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J. (ORAL) –

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for setting aside the order dated 21.08.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial Court, whereby the application dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure P-4) filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) seeking amendment of the plaint, has been dismissed.

2. A perusal of the facts of the case would show that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed an amended suit (Annexure P-3) for separate possession of 1/12th share by way of partition in gair mumkin ruri/gair mumkin abadi land measuring 28 kanals 11 marlas, forming part of land measuring 80 kanals 8 marlas, along with a prayer for permanent injunction restraining respondent No.1/defendant No.1 from taking illegal and forcible possession of, or alienating, any specific portion of the suit property.

3. It transpires that on an application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, the plaint was amended vide order dated 23.02.2023, whereby the petitioner/plaintiff claimed 1/12th share in the suit land, asserting his status as a co-sharer. The basis of the claim was that he along with respondents No.2 to 4/defendants No.2 to 4, had inherited the property by natural succession upon the death of his father, namely, Bhupinder Singh, and subsequently his mother, namely, Surjit Kaur, thereby becoming a 1/12th co-sharer. It further transpires that during the pendency of the trial, the petitioner/plaintiff filed another application dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure P-4) seeking amendment of the plaint, whereby he sought a declaration that he is the exclusive owner to the extent of 1/4th share in the suit land measuring 80 kanals 8 marlas and further sought setting aside and correction of revenue mutation No.1966, which had been sanctioned by the revenue authorities on the basis of natural succession in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff and respondents No.2 to 4/defendants No.2 to 4 in equal shares, so as to reflect the petitioner/plaintiff as the sole beneficiary. The abovesaid claim is based upon a registered Will dated 25.09.2003, allegedly executed by the father of the petitioner/plaintiff in his favour, to the exclusion of the other legal heirs. The trial Court, while considering the abovesaid application dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure P-4) under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, dismissed the same vide order dated 21.08.2026 (Annexure P-1). Aggrieved against the said order dated 21.08.2026 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present revision petition.

4. The petitioner, appearing in person, submits that the claim based upon the Will was inadvertently not pleaded in the original suit by his previous counsel and the omission came to his notice only while preparing for his evidence. He submits that the registered Will is a material document having a direct bearing upon the title claimed by the petitioner/plaintiff.

5. I have heard the petitioner/plaintiff and perused the paperbook with his able assistance.

6. It is not in dispute that the original suit was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking separate possession of his share by way of partition, claiming himself to be a co-sharer in gair mumkin ruri/gair mumkin abadi land measuring 28 kanals 11 marlas. The plaint was subsequently amended vide order dated 23.02.2023, whereby the petitioner/plaintiff claimed 1/12th share in the suit land asserting his status as a co-sharer. However, by way of the subsequent application dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner/plaintiff seeks to amend the nature of his claim by seeking relief of declaration to the effect of exclusive ownership to the extent of 1/4th share on the basis of a Will allegedly executed by his father in his favour and by seeking correction of the revenue mutation. The petitioner/plaintiff, who had originally approached the Court seeking separate possession of his share in the suit property as a co-sharer and who had already amended the plaint on the said basis, now seeks to set up a different claim founded under the Will. The amendment sought would introduce a new case, materially altering the nature of the suit and requiring the respondents/defendants to meet an entirely new case. The plea that the said fact regarding Will was not pleaded earlier due to an inadvertent omission on the part of the previous counsel and was noticed only while preparing for evidence, by itself, cannot furnish sufficient ground for permitting such a change in the nature of the suit at this stage of the proceedings.

7. Taking into consideration the abovesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 21.08.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial Court, warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

8. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.

Petition dismissed.

********