IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 309 CR-3991-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision : 13.05.2025 Rajender Kumar Aggarwal ....Petitioner VERSUS Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Ors ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present : Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Veer Imaan Singh Gill, Advocate for respondent No.2. ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral) 1. Present revision petition has been filed by defendant No.1 challenging the order dated 19.05.2023 whereby the application for amendment of the written statement filed by defendant-respondent No.2 was allowed. 2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff- respondent No.1 had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction setting up a Will dated 05.02.2009 and challenging the other Wills alleged to have been executed by the father of the parties. A detailed written statement was filed by defendant-respondent No.2, namely, Suman Aggarwal, however, before the evidence could be led an application was filed by defendant-respondent No.2 for amendment of the written statement stating therein that she was not aware that her father had got the JITENDER KUMAR 2025.05.14 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR-3991-2023 -2- property by way of a decree in his favour and her mother was impersonated and therefore, the amendment was necessitated. Reply was filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1. Reply was also filed by defendant No.1-petitioner herein. Vide the impugned order the application was allowed. Aggrieved by the same the defendant No.1-petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1-petitioner would contend that defendant-respondent No.2 and plaintiff-respondent No.1 in connivance have filed the present application for amendment and that by way of the amendment the defendant-respondent No.2 is taking a complete somersault. 4. Per contra learned senior counsel for the defendant-respondent No.2 would contend that the plaintiff in the present case, who is respondent No.1 herein has absolutely no objection to the amendment. That being so, the defendant No.1-petitioner herein would have no right to object to the amendment. 5. Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff- respondent No.1 has made a statement even today in Court that the plaintiff- respondent No.1 has no objection if the amendment is allowed. 6. Heard. 7. In the present case the suit has been filed by the plaintiff- respondent No.1 who is not aggrieved by the amendment application filed by defendant-respondent No.2. It is not a case where any counter-claim has been filed by the defendant No.1-petitioner. The only grouse of the defendant No.1-petitioner is that the entire defence as raised by the JITENDER KUMAR 2025.05.14 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR-3991-2023 -3- defendant-respondent No.2 earlier has been changed. If at all any person can be aggrieved, it would be the plaintiff, who is the dominus litis. If the plaintiff-respondent No.1 himself does not have any objection, possibly it does not lie in the mouth of the defendant No.1-petitioner to say that he has an objection to the amendment. 8. In view of the above, present revision petition, which being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. ( ALKA SARIN ) 13.05.2025 JUDGE jk NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO JITENDER KUMAR 2025.05.14 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh