Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
G.P. Mittal, J.
Kamal Mitra Chenoy & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Dunlop India Ltd. & Anr. - Resopndent
CS (OS) 3391 of 2012
Decided On : 24-07-2014
CPC - Joinder of Parties - Order 1 Rule 10, Order 7 Rule 11, Order 6 Rule 17 - Section 7(iii) of the Court Fees Act - Common questions of fact and law arising from Lease and Hire Agreements - Liberal approach to amendment of pleadings
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction/possession and permanent injunction against the Defendants, claiming that the property was let out to Defendant No. 1 through a registered Lease Deed and Hire Agreement. Defendants filed applications challenging the joinder of parties and causes of action, and the valuation of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Plaintiffs were entitled to sue the Defendants jointly, as common questions of fact arose from the Lease and Hire Agreements. The Court rejected the Defendants' applications and allowed the Plaintiffs' application for amendment of pleadings to claim mesne profits.
Issues: Joinder of parties and causes of action, valuation of the suit, and amendment of pleadings.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied Order 1 Rule 10, Order 7 Rule 11, and Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, as well as Section 7(iii) of the Court Fees Act. It emphasized the liberal approach to amendment of pleadings and the allowance of necessary amendments for determining the real questions between the parties.
Final Decision: The applications challenging the joinder of parties and causes of action were dismissed, and the application for amendment of pleadings was allowed.
IA No. 1072/2013 (under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC)
IA No. 4904/2013 (under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC) and
IA No. 891/2014 (under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in CS (OS) 3391/2012)
1. Plaintiff No. 1 (Dr. Kamal Mitra Chenoy) is husband and Plaintiff No. 2 (Dr. Anuradha Mitra Chenoy) is the wife. A suit for eviction/possession and permanent injunction was filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants with the allegations that Property No. 19, Block No. 171, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, as described in Para 1 of the plaint was let out by Plaintiffs to Defendant No. 1 (M/s. Dunlop India Limited) through its authorised signatory Mr. R.K. Kapoor for the residence of Defendant No. 2 (Dr. A.P. Singh) and his family members vide a registered Lease Deed for a period of three years with effect from 01.08.2009. If the lessee was desirous of renewal of the lease, he was required to request the lessor in writing at least three months in advance before expiry of the term of the lease. Unless specifically agreed in writing by the lessor (Plaintiff No. 1), the lease was not to be renewed automatically on the expiry of the lease period. Similarly, by a Hire Agreement dated 01.08.2009, the fittings and fixtures as mentioned in Annexure A to the Agreement were given on hire. Simultaneously with the agreement of lease on the expiry of lease period, the Hire Agreement was to automatically come to an end. The rent of the premises was Rs. 1,60,000/- payable by Defendant No. 1 to Plaintiff No. 1 whereas the hire charges were Rs. 2,40,000/- per month payable by Defendant No. 1 to Plaintiff No. 2.
2. In the application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) being IA No. 1072/2013, Defendant No. 1 contends that Plaintiff No. 2 is an unnecessary and improper party in the suit for eviction. Plaintiff No. 2 is not entitled for relief as prayed in the plaint and thus, the name of Plaintiff No. 2 is liable to be deleted from the array of parties.
3. In the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC (being IA No. 4904/2013) moved by Defendant No. 1, it has been averred that the basis of the suit are two different agreements with two different parties. Thus, it is claimed that the suit can be maintained either by Plaintiff No. 1 or by Plaintiff No. 2. Since the Plaintiffs have joined two different causes of action, the Plaint is liable to be rejected.
4. Both these applications have been resisted by the Plaintiffs by way of filing separate written replies. It is urged that the applications are misconceived and have been moved with groundless allegations. It is claimed that the cause of action accruing to Plaintiff No. 2 is different from Plaintiff No. 1 or that the Plaintiff No. 2 cannot be granted relief in the instant suit. The sum and substance of the defence raised to the applications is that since the Lease Agreement dated 31.07.2009 and the Hire Agreement dated 01.08.2009 have been impliedly admitted by Defendant No. 2 and since Hire Agreement was co-terminus with the registered Lease Agreement, Plaintiff No. 2 has been rightly impleaded as a party in the instant suit and the suit is perfectly maintainable.
5. As per Order 1 Rule 1 CPC, all persons may be joined in one suit as Plaintiffs where: (a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and (b) if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise.
6. Similarly, as per Order 2 Rule 3 CPC, a Plaintiff may unite in the same suit, several causes of action against the same Defendant, or the same Defendants jointly and any Plaintiffs having causes of action in which they are jointly interested against the same Defendant or the same Defendants jointly may unite such causes of action in the same suit.
7. It is well settled that for the purpose of deciding maintainability of the suit, the ave
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
