Amendments to plaints should be liberally allowed, provided they do not cause injustice, ensuring precise determination of legal rights in ongoing litigation.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The impugned order dated 8th January 2020, passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge (the learned ASCJ) in CS 1448/2018 (Om Prakash Gupta v. Subhash Chand Goel) allows an application under Order VI Rule 17¹ of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by the plaintiff in the suit, who is the respondent before this Court.

2. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner, as defendant in the suit, has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Facts

3. CS 1448/2018 ("the suit") was instituted by the respondent Om Prakash Gupta against various defendants, of which the petitioner was Defendant 2. The suit was instituted in respect of the plot of land Plot No. 26, Street No. B/l of Site-B, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi ("the suit property"). It was averred, in the suit, that the entire piece of land, on which the suit property was situated, was originally owned by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MoHUD) who, vide a lease deed dated 28th May 1968, leased out the land to the Governments Servants Cooperative House Building Society ("the Society"). The lease was expressly for the purpose of sub-leasing the plot to the members of Society, subject to the conditions stipulated in the lease deed. The plaint averred that a draw of lots was conducted on 21st August 1967, pursuant to which the suit property was exclusively allotted in the name of the respondent, vide agreement dated 23rd June 1968 which was executed by the Society in the respondent's favour.

4. Subsequently, a sub-lease deed, dated 29th January 1971, was executed by the Society in favour of the respondent and Subhas Chand Goel, who is Respondent 2 in the present proceedings, represented through his legal heirs.

5. The plaint further averred that, after execution of the sub-lease deed dated 29th January 1971, by mutual agreement between them, Subhas Chand Goel occupied the western part of the suit property and the respondent retained the eastern part thereof. The respondent, thereafter, claimed to have erected certain structures on the eastern part of the suit property, in which he has been residing with his family since 1980.

6. The plaint alleged that Subhas Chand Goel was, without obtaining any sanction from municipal authorities, erecting a three storey house on his (western) portion of the suit property. Having commenced the said construction, Subhas Chand Goel, according to the plaint, left the suit property on 18th January 1996. Thereafter, alleged the plaint, the respondent noticed, on 27th January 1996, that the petitioner Lalit Mohan Madhan, who was Defendant 2 in the suit, was completing the alleged illegal construction which had been commenced by Subhas Chand Goel. On enquiries, according to the plaint, the respondent was informed by the petitioner that he had purchased the property from Subhas Chand Goel. The respondent claimed to have requested the petitioner to desist from further construction, as the building plan with respect to the premises had yet to be sanctioned by the municipal authorities. The plaint also refers to title documents in the form of power of attorney and Will whereunder Subhas Chand Goel had sought to transfer the suit property to the petitioner.

7. This, alleged the plaint, was also in violative of the covenants of the sub-lease deed dated 29th January 1971.

8. In these circumstances, the plaint asserted that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) was under a statutory duty to demolish the structures on the western side of the suit property, the construction of which had been commenced by Subhas Chand Goel and was allegedly being continued and sought to be completed by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the suit sought reliefs in the following terms:

"The plaintiff, therefore, respectfully prays for the grant of the following reliefs:

i) that the defendant no.1 and 2 be restrained from raising any further constructions on the Plot no. 26, Street No. B/1 of Site-B i