Pran Nath Arora v. Satish Kumar Arora And ORS

CR No.2309 of 2021 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2309 of 2021 (O&M) Date of decision: February 3rd, 2026 Pran Nath Arora .....Petitioner

Versus

Satish Kumar Arora and others .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:

Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. A.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Vishal Mehta, Advocate for Ms. Mehardeep, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Mr. Akhil Saini, Advocate for respondent No.4.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1.

This is a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.09.2021 passed by the trial Court, whereby the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the only amendment that the petitioner is wanting to make is rectification of a clerical mistake made in paragraph 5 of the written statement, inasmuch as, instead of mentioning the property bearing No.23, inadvertently, property bearing No.24A was mentioned.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.02.04 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CR No.2309 of 2021 (O&M) submitted that the said amendment is not necessary and is only to delay the proceedings and have further submitted that the application has been filed after seven witnesses had been examined by the petitioner/defendant No.1. It is submitted that in case the said amendment is to be allowed, then, the petitioner should pay heavy cost for the inconvenience caused to respondent No.1.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly submitted that petitioner is ready to pay reasonable cost.

5.

During the course of arguments, a very fair stand has been taken by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and in view of the consensus, the present petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 08.09.2021 vide which the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC had been dismissed is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner is allowed subject to the petitioner depositing cost of 25,000/- within a period of two weeks from today, which ₹ would be paid to respondent No.1-plaintiff. It is made clear that in case the said cost is not deposited, then, the present revision petition would be deemed to have been dismissed.

6.

This Court has not opined on the merits of the amendment and it would be open to the parties to raise all pleas as are available to them, during the course of trial.

February 3rd, 2026 (VIKAS BAHL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.02.04 16:22 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh