Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 625
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anu Malhotra, J.
Chetan Dayal - Appellant
Versus
Aruna Malhotra & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous (M) No. 828 of 2018
Decided On : 01-07-2020
Jai Sahai Endlaw, Advocate, Deepika Mishra, Advocate, Shivansh Soni, Advocate, Namita Roy, Advocate, Abhijit Acharya, Advocate, Mohit Kumar, Advocate, Prabhsaha Karu, Advocate, Shruti Gola, Advocate
The court emphasized the liberal approach in granting amendments and the relevance of subsequent events to the case.
Headnote:
Amendment - Civil Procedure Code - Order 6 Rule 17 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Order VI Rule 17 CPC
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks to set aside the order allowing amendment in the written statement filed by the respondent. The petitioner filed a suit for partition and separate possession of property. The respondent sought to amend the written statement based on subsequent events, including the petitioner's contradictory statements in other proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the amendment, citing the need to determine the real controversy between the parties and the absence of prejudice to the petitioner. The court emphasized the liberal approach in granting amendments and the relevance of subsequent events to the case.
Issues: The main issue was the allowance of the amendment in the written statement, considering the petitioner's contradictory statements and subsequent events.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the liberal approach in granting amendments, the relevance of subsequent events, and the absence of prejudice to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The petition to set aside the order allowing the amendment was declined.
JUDGMENT
Anu Malhotra, J. - The petitioner vide the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks the setting aside of the order dated 31.5.2018 of the learned Additional District Judge-05, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi whereby inter alia an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the respondent No.2 herein through his LRs for the amendment in the written statement was allowed.
2. Submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents.
3. The petitioner in the instant case is the plaintiff of CS No. 56158/16 seeking partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share in property bearing No.E-7/6, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and has also sought mesne profits and rendition of accounts. The claim of the plaintiff i.e., the petitioner herein is that the suit property was owned by late Sh. Dayal Chand Kaith vide a perpetual lease Deed dated 6.4.1971 and late Sh. Dayal Chand Kaith vide a gift deed dated 3.6.1974 transferred his half undivided share in the suit property to the defendant No.1, i.e., the respondent No.1 herein, and made his last and final Will dated 4.2.1997 by virtue of which he bequeathed his half undivided share to the defendant No.2, i.e., the respondent No.2 herein, and the remaining half undivided share to the plaintiff. The petitioner further submitted that Sh.Dayal Chand Kaith died on 3.12.1997 and on his death, the plaintiff to the suit, i.e., the petitioner herein and the defendant no.2, i.e., the respondent No.2 herein now represented through his legal representatives, became the owners of 1/4th undivided share in the suit property bearing No. E-7/6, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, with the defendant No.1 i.e., the respondent No.1 herein being the owner of 1/2 share of the suit property and thus the plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner herein, came into constructive possession of the suit property and became entitled to rent from the tenant and to possession thereof upon vacation by the tenant.
4. According to the plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner herein, on 28.1.1999, the defendant No.1, i.e., the respondent No.1 as the attorney of defendant No.2, i.e., the respondent No.2 herein, filed a suit for declaration that the Will dated 4.2.1997 was not genuine and on 25.2.1999, the plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner herein filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, for declaration to the effect that the Will dated 4.2.1997 is the last Will of Late Sh. Dayal Chand Kaith. It is further submitted that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chandigarh vide judgment dated 30.7.2004 partly allowed the suit of the plaintiff to the effect that the Will dated 4.2.1997 is the last and final Will of the deceased Dayal Chand Kaith which judgment has become final and thus the plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner herein, filed the suit praying that a decree be passed in his favour and against the defendants no.1 and 2, i.e.,the respondents No.1 and 2 herein for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff''s 1/4th share of the suit property as well as for mesne profits and rendition of accounts etc.
5. The defendants No.1 and 2, i.e., the respondents No.1 and 2 herein, vide their joint written statement contested the suit of the plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner herein, and categorically denied the execution of the Will dated 4.2.1997 by late Sh. Dayal Chand Kaith and according to them late Sh. Dayal Chand Kaith during his lifetime had executed two Wills one dated 21.12.1995 and another dated 9.8.1996.
6. The legal representatives of the defendant now arrayed as the respondents No.2(i), (ii) and (iii) to the present petition, sought amendment of the written statement on the ground that the plaintiff therein, i.e., the petitioner herein, had made a statement before the Local Police at Chandigarh by lodging the FIR No. 13 with PS 03, Chandigarh dated 24.1.2011 whereby the plaintiff, i.e., the petitioner herein had made a sta
