IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Rachna Mediratta & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Girdhari Lal & Anr.
And – Respondent
C.R.P. 48 of 2022 & CM(M) 280 of 2022
Decided On : 05-07-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to trial court orders. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's contentions regarding abatement. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. petitioners argue procedural errors. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. notice of parties and procedural disputes. (Para 8 , 12) |
| 5. amendment discretion principles. (Para 14 , 17) |
| 6. court’s reasoning on amendment applications. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. subsequent events affect amendments. (Para 22 , 24) |
| 8. conclusion on trial court’s discretion. (Para 25 , 29) |
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J.
CM(M) 280/2022 & C.M. APPL. 26150/2022
C.R.P. 48/2022 & C.M. APPL. 17201/2022 (Stay) 26140/2022 (early disposal)
1. CM(M) 280/2022 has been filed by the Petitioners laying a challenge to an order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No.626/2019 titled `Girdhari Lal Tolani v. Ashok Kumar and Others' whereby two applications filed by Respondent No.1/Sh. Girdhari Lal herein have been allowed, one under Order I Rule 10 CPC and the other under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. C.R.P. 48/2022 has been filed by the Petitioners assailing order dated 23.03.2022 whereby application filed by the Petitioners under Order VI Rule 18 CPC has been dismissed by the Trial Court. Petitioners herein are newly added Defendants before the Trial Court while Respondent No.1 is the Plaintiff and for the ease of reference, parties hereinafter are referred to by their litigating status before this Court.
2. By an order dated 13.04.2022, both petitions were clubbed and directed to be heard together. Be it noted that on 30.03.2022, this Court in CM(M) 280/2022 had rejected the request of the Petitioners to stay the Trial Court proceedings but directed that the same shall be subject to the outcome of these proceedings.
3. Facts to the extent necessary and taken from the petitions and/or documents on record are:
(A). Family of late Sh. Lila Ram comprised of three sons namely Sh. Kishan Chand, Sh. Hundal Das Tolani and Sh. Arjun Das and two daughters namely Smt. Kalawati and Smt. Kanta. Sh. Lila Ram was the owner of several immovable properties including property bearing Nos.38/1 and 38/2, Double Storey, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi (`suit property');
(B). Respondent No.1 and his brother late Sh. Gul Kumar being the grandsons of Sh. Lila Ram and sons of late Sh. Arjun Das filed a suit in 1999 for declaration, partition and injunction against Sh. Ashok Kumar, Defendant No. 1/Respondent No.2 herein, who was the subsequent purchaser of suit property from Defendant No. 2/Sh. Kishan Chand as well as other legal heirs of Sh. Lila Ram i.e. his two daughters, one son Sh. Kishan Chand and legal heirs of late Sh. Hundal Das Tolani. In the plaint, Respondent No. 1 had detailed the various properties owned by Sh. Lila Ram and also referred to a Will dated 12.04.1973 in respect of all his properties;
(C). It is averred in the plaint that Respondent No.1 and his brother Sh. Gul Kumar were in constructive possession of the suit property as the same was occupied by tenants, who were paying rent to them and earlier thereto to their father. It is also averred that Respondent No. 1 has filed a separate suit for injunction against Sh. Kishan Chand, which is pending and in which Sh. Ashok Kumar produced some forged documents purportedly a family settlement amongst Sh. Lila Ram and his sons. It is from the stand of Sh. Ashok Kumar in the said suit that Respondent No. 1 learnt that Sh. Kishan Chand had sold the suit property to Sh. Ashok Kumar for a sum of Rs.5 lacs vide Agreement to Sell dated 21.05.1997. This Agreement according to Respondent No. 1 is null and void and conveys no right, title or interest in favour of Sh. Ashok Kumar;
(D). It is also averred that though Sh. Lila Ram had left a Will in respect of his immovable properties but Respondent No. 1 and his brother are ready to forego all their rights as per the Will, save and except, the suit property, which is a joint Hindu Family property of which no partition has taken place. It is also stated that all properties of Sh. Lila Ram have to be part
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC should be allowed if necessary for determining real issues, provided they do not cause injustice to the other party.
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC should be allowed if necessary for justice and do not change the nature of the suit.
Point of Law : In case there is no proper pleading to support the relief as claimed in petition, then respondent has no opportunity to resist or oppose such relief, and if court considers and grant s....
The court emphasized the importance of bona fide amendments and a liberal approach to avoid multiplicity of litigations while considering applications for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.