IMPORTANT POINT
Procedural prescriptions are handmaid and not mistress of justice.

Jayant Nath, J.— The present application is filed for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking the relief of possession, recovery of damages/mesne profits, permanent and mandatory injunction pertaining to property No.53, Sector-12, Block-B, Dwarka, New Delhi. It is averred in the plaint that the parties to the Suit are close relatives i.e. plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2 being real brothers while plaintiff No.1 is wife of plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1 is the wife of defendant No.2. The suit property it is stated

was originally allotted by DDA to one Ishwar Singh.

The defendant No.2 at that time was working in the Land & Building Department of the Delhi Government situated at ITO. Plaintiff No.2 was engaged in the business of sale and purchase of properties. It is stated that the defendant No.2 informed plaintiff No.2 that Shri Ishwar Singh was ready to sell his property. Accordingly, it is stated that the plaintiff purchased the rights of Shri Ishwar Singh for valuable consideration. It was stated that a registered General Power of Attorney dated 25.1.1994, two Special Power of Attorney of the same date, Agreement to Sell, possession letter, receipt etc. were executed.

2. It is stated that defendant No.2 offered to the plaintiff that he would get the suit property converted to freehold. Hence, the plaintiffs handed over the entire file containing all original documents to defendant No.2. Later defendant No.2 is stated to have claimed that the documents were misplaced. FIR No.971/2001 dated 20.08.2001 was got registered at Police Station Sarojini Nagar, Delhi.

3. In September, 2009 it is stated that the plaintiff learnt that defendant No.2 is raising construction on the suit property. Hence, the present Suit is filed seeking a decree of possession, mesne profit etc.

4. The Suit was filed on 23rd October, 2010. The defendant filed written statement on 3.1.2011 stating that the property was actually bought by Shri Ram Dhan Sharma, father of plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.2 from the said original allotee Shri Ishwar Singh. Shri Ishwar Singh is stated to have executed Agreement to Sell, Power of Attorney, receipt and Will etc on 27.5.1994 in favour of the said Shri Ram Dhan Sharma. The defendant No.1 was stated to have bought the said property vide Agreement to Sell dated 11.7.2001 from Shri Ram Dhan Sharma. Thereafter on 17.10.2005 a Conveyance Deed was executed in favour of the defendants by DDA.

5. Issues were framed in this case on 28th November, 2011. Issue No.4 reads as follows:

“4. Whether the suit is not maintainable without challenging the Conveyance Deed executed by DDA in favour of the defendants? (OPD)

6. List of witnesses were filed by the plaintiff. PW 1 Shri Bhagwan Sharma also tendered his evidence by way of Affidavit on 2nd May, 2012. Minimal examination-in-chief was done on the said date. Thereafter the plaintiff filed IA No.2703/2013 under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC seeking to delete the aforesaid issue No.4 on the ground that the same does not arise from the pleadings of the parties. The said application was dismissed on 18.2.2013 with a clarification that the said dismissal of the application will not come in the way of the plaintiffs/applicants, if so advised, to seek amendment of the plaint. Hence, the present application has now been filed seeking amendment of the Plaint.

7. By the present application plaintiff seeks to amend the plaint to add averments challenging the documents executed by Shri Ishwar Singh in favour of Shri Ram Dhan Sharma. A decree of declaration is sought declaring all documents of alleged transfer of title dated 27.5.1994 executed by Shri Ishwar Singh in favour of Shri Ram Dhan Sharma as forged and fabricated and also similar declaration qua the document executed by Shri Ram Dhan Sharma dated 11.7.2001 in favour of the defendants. Challenge is also sought to be made to the Conveyance Deed dated 17.10.2005 executed by DDA in favour of the defendants. I