The court emphasized that amendments should permit full adjudication of cases on their merits, allowing issues to be raised during trial rather than at the amendment stage.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.

CM APPL. 44542/2021 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

CRP 94/2021 & CM APPL. 44541/2021 (for stay)

3. The Petitioner/Defendant (hereinafter "Defendant") assails the order dated 9th September, 2021, passed by the ADJ, South West Dwarka, New Delhi (hereinafter "Trial Court") in CS No. 10291/2016 titled Lekhi Ram v. Hari Ram. Vide the said order, an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the original plaint filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent (hereinafter "Plaintiff"), has been allowed by the Trial Court, subject to cost of Rs. 20,000/-to be deposited by the Plaintiff. The observations of the Trial Court are as under:

"1. Vide this order Application under O.6 R. 17 CPC is being disposed.

Plaintiff is seeking incorporation of Property bearing No.165B Masjid Moth for Partition in the suit which was only for property No.180 Masjid Moth. Correction in the no. of 180 Masjid Moth is also prayed as 180 B.

Plaintiff had filed before Hon'ble High court this suit for partition of property bearing no. 180 Masjid Moth and it was registered on 2.3.2015, Subsequently, it was transferred to the district court on enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction. Issues were framed on 03.02.2017. Additional issue as to limitation was also framed on 22.12.2017. A suit was filed earlier by the Plaintiff for permanent injunction in the year 2003 which was disposed on 22.08.2003 on preliminary issue with liberty to seek efficacious remedy. Plaintiff did not lead any evidence in the suit for partition and sought withdrawal of the suit on 15.09.2018 with liberty to file fresh suit for incorporating all the ancestral property which was opposed and thereafter Plaintiff filed the application for amendment for incorporating the property 180 B on 27.03.2019 and as it was not clarifying various changes made in different paras, fresh application highlighting the changes in different paras was later filed. Reply was filed raising contention of limitation, bar of O.2 R. 2 CPC, contradiction in the stand of Plaintiff qua the complaint dt. 06.04.2003 regarding partition of property no. 180 B.

1. Proposed incorporation in Para 1 of the plaint of plea of raising of construction of second and third floor with joint funds being inconsistent with the stand of existing plea in the original plaint as to contribution for raising construction being jointly for third floor only, was also raised.

Further incorporation was sought in para 1 of the plaint as to construction on second floor and third floor by stating that it was inadvertently left out and incorporation of revised site was accordingly sought. It was also opposed on the ground of inconsistency and contradiction.

2. It was contended that the main intention is to create pressure and blackmail defendant for making him succumb to the illegal demand of Plaintiff and that this is third round of litigation. Counsel for the Plaintiff on the other hand argued that this is the only suit for Partition which was filed after withdrawal in 2014 of the suit for partition on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction and the earlier suit in 2003 was for injunction only which was disposed in 2003 itself with liberty to seek efficacious remedy. It was argued by the counsel for Plaintiff that Plaintiff is not well educated and could not inform the earlier counsel to incorporate all the properties for partition and only recently disclosed about another property to him and hence the app