2023/DHC/000410

CS (OS) NO. 1953/2013 Page 1 of 4

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: January 20, 2023

+

CS (OS) NO. 1953/2013, I.A.1794/2021

1.

MEERA JAIN

W/o Late Mr. Vinod Jain

R/O A-1/268, Safdarjung Enclave

New Delhi – 110029

2.

SUNITA JAIN

W/o Mr. Sudershan Jain

R/o 2427, Pelham Drive

Houston, Texas, USA

(Through Her Attorney, Mrs. Meera Jain)

..... Plaintiffs

Through:

Mr. Irfan Ahmed & Ms. Shweta

Saini, Advocates.

versus

1.

ANITA GUPTA

W/o Mr. Anil Gupta

R/o First Floor

A-1/66, Safdarjung Enclave

New Delhi – 110029

2.

THE SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

Hauz Khas

New Delhi - 110016

3.

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

P.S. Safdarjung Enclave

Sarojini Nagar

New Delhi.

Digitally Signed

By:PRIYANKA ANEJA

Signing Date:20.01.2023

15:11:28

Signature Not Verified

2023/DHC/000410

CS (OS) NO. 1953/2013 Page 2 of 4

..... Defendants

Through:

Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate

with Mr. Vikas Arora, Ms. Radhika

Arora, Mr. Piyush Kumar & Mr.

Siddharth Singh, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G E M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

I.A. 4155/2019

1.

An application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as“CPC”), has been

filed on behalf of the defendant No.1 for rejection of the plaint dated 17^th

August, 2017 (sic) 2018.

2.

It is submitted in the application that the plaintiffs had originally filed

a suit for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction in which Smt. Sundari Devi

Garg was defendant No. 1. However, on the application of the plaintiffs vide

Order dated 18^th August, 2015 her name was deleted from the array of

parties, by this Court. Amended memo of parties was also filed on 15^th May,

2017. 3.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17

CPC for amendment of the suit which was allowed and the amended plaint

titled as “Smt. Meera Jain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Sundari Devi Garg & Ors.” was

filed. Despite the name of Smt. Sundari Devi Garg having deleted, she was

again mentioned as defendant No.1 in the amended plaint. There were

allegations and averments made against her in the plaint and even the relief

Digitally Signed

By:PRIYANKA ANEJA

Signing Date:20.01.2023

15:11:28

Signature Not Verified

2023/DHC/000410

CS (OS) NO. 1953/2013 Page 3 of 4

had been sought against her vide Prayer (a). It is asserted that the malafides

of the plaintiffs in writ large as much as despite knowing that Smt. Sundari

Devi Garg has been deleted, still in order to confuse and mislead, the

plaintiffs have filed an amended suit by making Smt. Sundari Devi Garg as a

party. There is no order/ direction of this Court directing reimpleadment of

Smt. Sundari Devi Garg.

4.

It is further asserted that plaintiffs being aware that Smt. Sundari Devi

Garg (whose name they have got deleted) is a necessary party since they

were seeking a relief of partition by enforcing MoU dated 12^th March, 2008

and the rights of the parties are subject to the said MoU/ Family Settlement,

have intentionally shown her as defendant No.1 despite deletion. A prayer

is, therefore, made that the amended plaint dated 17^th August, 2018 filed by

the plaintiffs, may be rejected.

5.

Submissions heard.

6.

The record shows that Smt. Sundari Devi Garg who had been

originally impleaded as defendant No.1 in the original suit for Permanent

and Mandatory Injunction, was deleted vide Order dated 18^th August, 2015.

The amended memo of parties was filed on 15^th May, 2017, wherein Smt.

Anita Gupta was shown as defendant No.1. Thereafter, amendment

application was