The court has the authority to allow amendments to pleadings to determine the true conflict between the parties, but the amendment should not result in an injustice to the opposing side.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

I.A. No. 17404/2022 (under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

1. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC") seeking the following reliefs:

"a. A decree of partition be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby declaring that the plaintiff and the defendants have 1/4th share each in the suit property i.e. property no. A-389, Defence Colony, New Delhi;

b. A decree of possession of be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby directing that the suit property i.e. property no. A-389, Defence Colony, New Delhi be partitioned by metes and bounds and the vacant and peaceful possession of the l/4th share in the suit property be given to the plaintiff;

Or in the alternatively if the suit property cannot be divided amongst the plaintiff and defendants by metes and bounds, the same may be put to sale through an officer appointed by the court and l/4th share of the plaintiff be given to the plaintiff as per the decree;

c. A decree of rendition of accounts be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant thereby directing that the defendant no. 1 & 2 to account for the rental income for the last 3 years from the 2 shops and first floor of the suit property and deposit the same either in the Hon'ble Court or to the plaintiffs account;

or/and Direct the defendant no. 1 & 2 be to deposit the l/4th of the share of the rental income which they are pocketing currently i.e. after the filing of the present suit either in the Hon'ble Court or to the plaintiffs account;

d. A decree of declaration be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby declaring that the order/judgment passed in suit no. 75/76 titled as Devinder Pal Singh Rckhi & Ors vs Prehlad Singh Rckhi & Ors. dated 28.05.1976 and decree passed in the said suit as nullity and a sham document being an act of fraud been played by the defendant no. 1 & 2 in collusion with the father of the parties on the grounds mentioned in the plaint;

e. A decree of permanent injunction may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants thereby directing the defendants not to alienate, sell, create any encumbrance, part with possession, or create any third party interest in the suit property i.e. property no. A-389, Defence Colony, New Delhi in respect of the share of the plaintiff.

f. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff, in the interest of justice."

SUBMISSIONS

(Submissions on behalf of applicant/plaintiff)

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff submitted that the defendants No. 1 and 2 have raised a number of preliminary objections in their written statement, in addition to providing scant information about the litigation that their father, Late Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi, filed or was involved in, including the consent decree dated 28th May, 1976, in accordance with which the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 claim ownership of the first floor and second floor of the suit property. It is further submitted that the defendants No. 1 and 2 disclosed the purchase of two properties by the late father of the parties, i.e., Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi, in the names of the plaintiff and defendant No. 3, one at Shahdara and the other at Sangam Vihar, and it is further alleged that the applicant and defendant No. 3 have received their share of the suit property. All of these details and documentation have been purposefully and willfully withheld from the plaintiff by defendants No. 1 and 2.

3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff that the applicant's father, Late Sh. Prehlad Singh Rekhi, had shared a home with defendant No. 1, and upon his passing, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have control, own