Back
2024 Supreme(Del) 373
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
M/s D Pauls Travel & Tours Limited - Appellant
Versus
Jamal Siddiqui & Anr. - Respondents
CS(COMM) 575 of 2019, I.A 14330 of 2019, I.A 17179 of 2023
Decided On : 20-02-2024
Mr. Rishi Sood and Mr. Jaypreet Singh, Advocates, for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Anand Shankar, Advocate, for the Defendants.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of allowing the proposed amendments on account of the subsequent event of service of Notice of Termination and noted that the defendants could raise their objections in their Written Statement.
Headnote:
Amendment - Civil Procedure Code - Order VI Rule 17 - [CPC, 1908] - The court discussed the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking amendment in the plaint. The key legal provisions discussed included the nature of the suit, the proposed amendments, and the subsequent events that necessitated the amendments. The court allowed the application, noting that the proposed amendments were on account of the subsequent event of service of Notice of Termination and that the defendants could raise their objections in their Written Statement.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for Specific Performance, Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, Mesne Profits, and Damages based on an Agreement to Sell. The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to withdraw the relief for Specific Performance and make Recovery of Possession the main relief, citing subsequent events.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the application for amendment, noting that the proposed amendments were on account of the subsequent event of service of Notice of Termination and that the defendants could raise their objections in their Written Statement.
Issues: The issues included the nature of the suit, the proposed amendments, and the subsequent events that necessitated the amendments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court allowed the application for amendment, emphasizing that the defendants could raise their objections in their Written Statement.
Final Decision: The application for amendment was allowed, and the amended plaint was taken on record. The defendants were given 30 days to file the Written Statement to the amended plaint.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
I.A 4038/2024(under Section 151 CPC on behalf of the defendants for Condonation of Delay of 29 Days in filing Reply to I.A 25805/2023)
1. An application has been filed on behalf of the defendant for Condonation of Delay of 29 days' in filing the reply to I.A.25805/2023.
2. It is submitted that the application has already been allowed by the learned Joint Registrar.
3. The application is accordingly disposed of.
I.A. 25805/2023 (under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on behalf of the plaintiff seeking Amendment in the Plaint)
4. An application has been filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC, 1908") on behalf of the plaintiff to amend the plaint.
5. It is submitted in the application that the plaintiff has sought to amend the Title of the plaint to delete "Specific Performance" and to substitute it with the suit for "Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, Mesne Profits and Damages". The plaintiff has consequently sought amendment in paragraph 1(a) to delete the claim for Specific Performance.
6. The plaintiff intends to add paragraph 14(a) to incorporate events that have occurred subsequent to filing of the plaint. The plaintiff wants to include that it, in terms of Clause 9 of Agreement to Sell, has issued a Termination Notice dated 07.11.2023 thereby terminating the Agreement to Sell dated 07.04.2017 and has forfeited the entire amount advanced by the defendant. He has also sought the vacant and physical possession of the suit property. A reply dated 24.11.2023 has been received from the defendant to his Notice of Termination.
7. Paragraph 14(b) is sought to be inserted to state that it was explicitly mentioned in Clause 9 of Agreement to Sell, that in case of failure of the seller to execute the necessary documents in favour of the purchaser, the Seller shall undertake to pay double the advance money to the Purchaser and if the Purchaser failed to make payment in stipulated time period, then the advance money shall be forfeited and the Purchaser shall have to vacate the suit premises.
8. Paragraph 14(c) is sought to be inserted to state to state that before the termination of the Agreement to Sell vide Legal Notice dated 27.12.2018 and 27.06.2019, the plaintiff had called upon the defendants to pay the balance payment and execute the Sale Deed. However, the defendants have failed to perform their part of the Agreement and have not shown any willingness to perform the Agreement to Sell.
9. Similarly, paragraph 18(a) is sought to be inserted to incorporate payment of Court Fee for the relief of Possession as sought to be inserted by way of amendment.
10. Paragraph 19(a) is sought to be incorporated to add the "Cause of action" which arose on account of Termination Notice dated 17.11.2023 and reply dated 24.11.2023.
11. In the prayer paragraph, prayer (A) in respect of relief of Specific Performance is sought to be deleted and prayer (C) is sought to be made the main prayer. It is submitted that the amendments have become essential on account of the subsequent events and has sought permission to amend the plaint.
12. The application is contested by the defendants, who in their Reply have asserted that the Original Plaint itself was premature as the same was filed on 14.10.2019 despite the fact that the Agreement to Sell provided the time frame for paying the balance consideration till 06.04.2020. A preliminary objection had already been taken by the defendant of the suit being premature.
13. It is asserted that the proposed amendments are mala fide as they intend to change the basic nature and structure of the original plaint by converting it from the suit for Specific Performance to suit for Recovery of Possession.
14. Further, the proposed amendments are not necessary for determination of real question in issue. The defendants had initially paid a sum of Rs.4,66,80,000/- against the total Sale consideration of Rs.7,75,00,000/- in terms of Agreement to Sell dated 07.04.2017. How
