J U D G M E N T

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 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: -

“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 plaintiff No. 1 as their attorney to do the needful in respect of suit property.”

9. That it is submitted that the after adding the prayer for declaration of ownership the suit property on th