SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Del) 1884

MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, HIMA KOHLI
MADHU SUDAN GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
DINESH GUPTA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.Singla, ANKUR MITTAL, Promila Dhar, S.D.Sharma, SANJEEV KUMAR


HIMA KOHLI, J.

( 1 ) THE question which is raised in the present appeal is whether the learned Single Judge has fallen in error in granting permission to the respondent/plaintiff to amend his plaint, by passing the impugned order dated 2nd december, 2004 on IA No. 1900/2003 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC ).

( 2 ) THE brief facts relevant for disposing of the present appeal are that the respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell (hereinafter referred to as 'the Agreement') dated 14th June, 1997 in respect of the first floor of property bearing No. D-43, N. D. S. E. , Part-I, New Delh. It is stated by the respondent/plaintiff in the suit that the appellant/defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the aforementioned property to the respondent/plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs. 36 lakh. As per the averments made in para 2 of the plaint, it is stated as under:

"that defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement of sale on 14th Day of june, 1997 with the plaintiff in respect of sale of first floor of property bearing No. D-43, N. D. S. E. , Part-I, New Delhi for a total sale consideration of




























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top