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

2023 Supreme(Del) 4920

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

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Praveen Suri, Ms. Kajal Kadam and Ms. Pooja Dhingra, Advocates, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Dinesh Garg, Advocate, for the Respondent-1.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Orders I Rule 10, VI Rule 17, and VI Rule 18 - Amendment of plaint - Trial Court allowed amendments to introduce subsequent developments during ongoing suit; Petitioners challenged legitimacy of amendments and sought dismissal of the suit based on alleged abatement following the death of a co-plaintiff - Court found that the amendments were necessary for effective adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of suits and would not change the nature of the original claim. (Paras 4, 10, 11, 19, 20, 24, 30)

(B) Civil Procedure - Supervisory jurisdiction - High Court clarified that its supervisory powers should not be exercised to rectify minor errors made by lower courts but only in cases of grave illegality or excess of jurisdiction. (Paras 10, 12, 19)

(C) Legal principles established - Courts should maintain a flexible approach towards amendments in pleadings to serve justice effectively, ensuring proceedings are not unnecessarily prolonged. (Paras 14, 18, 29)

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

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 Back to top