ORDER

% 16.01.2024

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff - Mrs. Kamal Nain seeking cancellation of the gift deed dated 20th September, 2023 issued by the late mother of the parties. Consequently, the Plaintiff also seeks partition of property being ‘S-37, Ground floor, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi- 110048’.

3. On 3rd November, 2023, the Defendants opposed the issuance of summons in the suit. It was contended that the Plaintiff amended the plaint without seeking leave from the Court. It was argued that the plaint in the suit was originally filed before the District Court and the same was returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC by the ld. District Judge, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi, due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. On the other hand, the Plaintiff denied incorporating any additional facts in the plaint, stating that the only change was the inclusion of information about the suit being returned by the lower court for the purpose of explaining the delay in filing the suit before the High Court. Thus, the Court on the last date directed as follows:

“4.

In order to enable this Court to appreciate as to whether the plaintiff has in fact amended the plaint as is sought to be urged by learned senior counsel for the defendants, the defendants are granted liberty to file a tabular chart setting out the purported amendments in the plaint.

5. List on 16.01.2024. the Court that till the next date the defendants will maintain status quo qua the title and possession of the aforesaid property i.e., ground floor, S-37, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi-110048”

4. Today, some submissions have been heard on the issue of application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and the return of plaint. In terms of the previous order, the Defendants has presented a chart, as per which, certain changes have been made in paragraphs 1, 10, 32 to 36 of the plaint.

Paragraphs 37 to 47 have also been added.

5. Per contra, Ms. Deepika Marwah, ld. Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff, places reliance on the judgment in EXL Careers & Ors. v. Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd., [(2020) 12 SCC 667], which clearly states that when any plaint is returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the proceedings have to commence de novo.

6. The question raised by the Defendants is whether the proceedings may be de novo, but the same plaint has to be presented before the Court.

Admittedly, the plaint has undergone some changes.

7. The Court has also heard the submissions on behalf of the parties. The parties are brothers and sisters. The Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are siblings. They are the children of Late Sh. Surinder Singh Chaudhary.

8. After hearing ld. Counsels for the parties, it appears that there is a possibility of settlement in this matter. Upon a query from the Court, Ms. Marwah, ld. Senior Counsel submits that there are several proceedings pending between the parties. Accordingly, let a joint chart be placed at the next date of hearing, listing out all the disputes between the parties and the fora before which they are pending. Secondly, a complete list of assets over which partition is sought be also placed on record, along with copies of the Wills that are being relied upon.

9. On the next date of hearing, the parties shall be present in Court.

10. The statement recorded vide order dated 3rd November, 2023, shall continue till the next date of hearing.

List on 21st February, 2024 at 4:00 p.m.

11. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. JANUARY 16, 2024 Rahul/dn CS(OS) 699/2023