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