PUSHPA ARORA Vs. ANITA ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application for amendment was made at the pre-trial stage. It was further submitted that while deciding the application for amendment the merits of the amendment cannot be considered by the trial Court. It was also submitted that the trial Court grossly erred in rejecting the application for amendment filed by the petitioner. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Usha Devi vs. Rijwan Ahamad and others, 2008 3 SCC 717 .

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the amendment of the plaint was filed with malafide intention with a view to protract the trial. It was further submitted that marriage of the respondent No. 1 with Late Rajeev Arora was never dissolved and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 is the legally married wife of deceased Rajeev Arora and is entitled to one-third share in the suit property. It was further submitted that if the Court finds that the application for amendment is malafide, same may be rejected. The order passed by the trial Court is just and legal and does not call for any interference.