Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
GEETA DHAWAN – Appellant
Versus
ANU MEHRA & ANR. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.
I.A. 2682/2024 (Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiff)
1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC whereby the plaintiff seeks to bring on record facts that have taken place during the pendency of the captioned suit and seeks further relief of specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 01.05.2003 entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1.
2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present application are as follow:-
a. The grandfather of the defendant no.1, i.e. Mr Baij Nath Mehra entered into Lease Agreement dated 10.12.1951 with the President of India in respect of property bearing no.3, Block No.171, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi-110003 measuring 0.179 acres (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’). Upon passing of Mr Baij Nath Mehra, the suit property devolved upon Mr Anu Mehra, i.e. defendant no.1 herein vide registered Will dated 23.08.1993.
b. The defendant no.1, desirous of selling the entire suit property approached the plaintiff herein following which negotiations took place between the parties which
The court affirmed that amendments to pleadings should be liberally granted to serve justice, particularly when the cause of action arises from recent developments, like the dismissal of a related ci....
Court emphasized a liberal approach in allowing amendments under Order VI Rule 17, especially when necessary for complete adjudication and no significant prejudice to other party is caused.
An amendment can only be allowed if it is necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties regarding the pending suit and not beyond that.
The court's decision emphasized that an amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC should not change the nature or character of the suit or its cause of action.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Sections 21 and 40 of the Specific Relief Act and Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C mandate the court to allow the plaintiff to seek an ....
The subsequent suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell based on a different cause of action is maintainable.
The maintainability of a suit for specific performance is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC if a plaintiff omits to claim it in an earlier suit concerning the same cause of action.
The plea of bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC prohibits a second suit for specific performance if based on the same cause of action previously omitted, and the suit is also barred by limitation under Art....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
