SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 25795

CM(M) 684/2023

Page 1 of 7

$~3

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 28.11.2023

+

CM(M) 684/2023 & CM APPL. 21322/2023

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Advocate

versus

NIRMAL KUMAR AND ORS

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, Ms. Gayatri

Aggarwal,

Mr.

Ayush

Agrawal,

Advocates.

%

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):

1.

This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugns

the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the ADJ-11, Central District, Tis

Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘Trial Court’) in CS DJ No. 614999/2016, titled as

‘Nirmal Kumar and Ors. v. Central Bank of India’, whereby the

Respondent No.1’s application under Section 151 of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed.

2.

The said application under Section 151 of CPC was filed in view of

the fact that the Respondent No.1 inadvertently failed to incorporate the

original prayer (a) of the unamended plaint, in the amended plaint filed on

24.04.2007 in pursuance of the Respondent No.1’s application under Order

Digitally Signed

By:MAHIMA SHARMA

Signing Date:07.12.2023

17:09:42

Signature Not Verified

Page 2 of 7

VI Rule 17 of CPC and allowed by the Trial Court on 23.05.2004.

2.1.

The Petitioner is defendant no.1 and Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are

the plaintiff nos. 1, 2 and 3. The remaining defendants have been proceeded

ex-parte before the Trial Court. For ease of reference, the parties are being

referred to by their original rank and status as is before the Trial Court.

2.2.

The civil suit was initially filed on 24.04.2007 seeking relief of

declaration and permanent injunction. The prayers in the original

unamended plaint read as under: -

“a)

PASS A DECREE FOR DECLARATION in favour of the plaintiffs

and against the defendants thereby declaring the Mortgage- Deed dated

9.9.1998 and other title documents submitted by the defendant Nos.3 to 5

with the defendant No.1 relating to suit property i.e. piece of land ad-

measuring 1 bigha 4 biswas comprised in Khasra No.241/1 situated at

Village Mangeshpur, New Delhi and its consequent dealings/use, as

illegal, null and void ab-initio; and

b)

Pass A DECREE FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION in favour of

the plaintiffs and against the against the defendants thereby restraining

the defendants, their agents, associates, assigns from selling, transferring,

alienating, disposing off, creating any third party interest and/or from

creating any encumbrances in respect of suit property i.e. piece of land

ad-measuring 1 bigha 4 biswas comprised in Khasra No.241/1 situated at

Village-Mangeshpur,

New

Delhi

by

using

mortgage

deed

.....illegible............ more particularly shown in red colour in the site plan

attached herewith;

c) Award costs in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants;

d) Pass any other or further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem

fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of' the case in favour of the

plaintiffs and against the defendants.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

3.

The plaintiffs thereafter in July, 2013 filed an application under Order

VI Rule 17 CPC for amending paragraph ‘1’ of the plaint and for including a

prayer of declaration. The relevant portion of the said application reads as

under: -

Digitally Signed

By:MAHIMA SHARMA

Signing Date:07.12.2023

17:09:42

Signature Not Verified

Page 3 of 7

“8. That it is submitted that after adding the new line in para 1 the said

para would read as follows; -

1. That the plaintiff. had purchased a piece of land ad-

measuring 1 bigha 4 biswas comprised in Khasra No.-

241/1 situated at Village Mangeshpur, New Delhi from the

defendant No.-2 vide three separate registered sale deed

dated 08.06.1994. (The defendant No.-2 had further

purchased the said plot from Sh. Jagat Ram on 30th June

1989 vide registered sale deed duly executed in the office of

Sub-Registrar Vide registered document No.7438, Volume

No.-6129 on pages 120-122, additional book No.-1, dated

30.06.1989). The names of the plaintiffs were duly mutated

in the revenue authorities as well. The said land is still in

possession of the plaintiffs. The same is shown in red color

in the site plan attached herewith and hereinafter referred

to as ‘suit Property’.

The plaintiffs No.-2 is house wife and plaintiff No. -3 is.

Handicapped, hence, they have authorized the pla

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top