$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 803/2023 & CM APPL. 25057/2023

SANJEEV LAKRA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Karan Veer Tyagi, Advocate

versus

BHIM SINGH

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Shiv Charan Garg and Mr. Imran

Khan, Advocates

%

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

1.

This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

impugns the order dated 04.02.2023 passed by the ADJ West District, Tis

Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘Trial Court’) in Civil Case No. 42/2022 titled as

‘Bhim Singh v. Sanjeev Lakra’, wherein the application dated 18.11.2022

(‘amendment application’) filed by the Petitioner herein under Order VI

Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking amendment of

the written statement was dismissed.

1.1

The Petitioner herein is the defendant and the Respondent herein is

the plaintiff in the civil suit, pending adjudication before the Trial Court. For

ease of reference, the parties are being referred to by their original rank and

status as was before the Trial Court.

1.2

The plaintiff has filed the civil suit under The Specific Relief Act,

1963, seeking decree of specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated

Digitally Signed

By:Rashmi Dabas

Signing Date:06.12.2023

20:47:16

Signature Not Verified

18.11.2021 (‘ATS’) and issuance of directions to the defendant to execute

and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with respect to property

bearing plot no. 608/2/A, Khasra No. 608/2, situated within the extended

Lal Dora, Mundka Village, Delhi - 110041, measuring 250 sq. yards (‘suit

property’).

1.3

The plaintiff has contended that the parties herein executed the ATS

for sale of the suit property for a sale consideration amount of Rs.

35,00,000/- and the plaintiff has paid part consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant refused to perform the ATS and

as a result, the plaintiff filed the civil suit on 10.01.2022.

1.4

The civil suit was registered on 11.01.2022, summons was issued on

13.01.2022 and were served to the defendant on 28.01.2022. The defendant

filed its written statement (‘original written statement’) to the civil suit on

07.07.2022, wherein the defendant denied holding negotiations for sale of

the suit property and categorically denied the execution of ATS as well as

receipt of the part consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/-. In fact to buttress the

submission of non-execution of ATS, it is pleaded that the defendant never

wanted to sell the suit property to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has elected not to file replication to the original written

statement as recorded by the Trial Court.

1.5

By order dated 01.09.2022, issues were framed in the civil suit and

the matter was listed for plaintiff’s evidence on the next date of hearing i.e.,

09.11.2022. It is at this advance stage, on 19.11.2022, the application

seeking amendment of the original written statement was filed by the

defendant.

1.6

The Trial Court vide impugned order dated 04.02.2023 dismissed the

Digitally Signed

By:Rashmi Dabas

Signing Date:06.12.2023

20:47:16

Signature Not Verified

amendment application on the grounds that: - (i) pleadings in the civil suit

have been completed, (ii) the matter is at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence

since 01.09.2022 and (iii) if the amended written statement is taken on

record, it would change the nature of the trial.

Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner i.e., defendant

2.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner i.e., defendant states that the

original written statement was filed on 07.07.2022 by the previous counsel.

However, after the present counsel was engaged and explained the contents

of the written statement, the defendant learnt that correct facts had not been

set out in the original written statement. He states that therefore to set the

record straight, the defendant seeks permiss