could not be pleaded in the plaint, as the Wills were not traceable. The Plaintiff could trace out the Will on 3rd May, 2011. Hence, the amendment application was filed. It is submitted that the Defendants-Petitioners filed objection to the said petitions stating that the Plaintiff had filed a probate case for probate of the Will dated 22nd June, 1990, which was dismissed on 3rd July, 2009. The execution of the alleged Wills were within the knowledge of the Plaintiff before filing of the suit. But, without taking such plea, the suit has been filed. Subsequently, when the Defendants filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC to decide the suit in terms of their admission, the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed. Learned trial Court without considering the fact that by virtue of amendment, the Plaintiff wants to change the foundation of the plaint and try to introduce a completely new story, allowed the application observing that the party producing such Will without probate should be allowed with an opportunity to plead about the Will, which will throw light for effective disposal of the suit. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Revajeetu Builders & Developers –v- Narayanaswamy and Sons and others , reported in 2009 (II) OLR (SC) 815, in which it is held that the amendment which is imperative for proper adjudication of the suit, should be allowed.
