Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/001621

CM(M) 1566/2018

Page 1 of 6

$~4

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on: 01.03.2023

+

CM(M) 1566/2018 & CM APPL. 53009/2018

RAJEEV KUMAR

..... Petitioner

versus

ZILE SINGH & ORS

..... Respondents

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Ajit Nair, Advocate.

For the Respondents :

Mr. Shekhar Prit Jha and Ms. Preeti

Kumari, Advocates.

CORAM:

JUDGMENT

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)

1.

Petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 30.11.2018 in CS

SCJ No. 97558/16 titled as “Zile Singh vs. Ram Kishan”, whereby the

learned Trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner

and others under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

(hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) for striking off the paragraphs in the

[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]

Digitally Signed

By:VINOD KUMAR

Signing Date:04.03.2023

16:11:05

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/001621

CM(M) 1566/2018

Page 2 of 6

amended plaint filed on behalf of respondent/ plaintiff consequent to the

impleadment of the petitioner herein.

2.

Mr. Ajit Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/

defendant No.4 submits that the language of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is

very clear, in that, only the necessary and formal amendments qua the

newly added defendant alone is to be permitted to be added by way of

an amendment without the necessity of filing an application under Order

VI Rule 17 CPC.

3.

Having regard to the fact that almost ten paragraphs dedicated to

the Will as propounded by one of the defendants, who is the father of

the petitioner were sought to be added, does not give the reason to the

respondent/ plaintiff to add those paragraphs which are not relevant to

the issue in dispute.

4.

Learned counsel submits that a reading of the amended

paragraphs i.e., para 4 through till para 14 of the amended plaint, in his

submission, makes it clear that the contents of those ought to have been

brought in by way of an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and

not by virtue of the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 (4) of CPC.

5.

On that basis, learned counsel submits that the Trial Court has

acted with material irregularity and judicial impropriety by permitting

such amendment and by dismissing the applications challenging the

same.

6.

Mr. Nair further submits that it is settled law of the land that any

amendment sought, cannot pertain to a stale claim or a claim barred by

law, and, therefore, the learned Trial Court ought to have examined

those issues before passing the impugned order.

Digitally Signed

By:VINOD KUMAR

Signing Date:04.03.2023

16:11:05

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/001621

CM(M) 1566/2018

Page 3 of 6

7.

Per contra, Mr. Shekhar Prit Jha, learned counsel appearing for

the respondent/ plaintiff submits that the learned Trial Court while

passing the impugned order has considered all the objections raised by

the learned counsel for the petitioner and has passed the impugned order

which is in accordance with law and is not challengeable, not only

insofar as the merits are concerned, but also on law.

8.

Mr. Jha, learned counsel draws attention of this Court to the

provisions of Rule 10 (4) of Order 1 of the CPC to submit that it is

incumbent upon the Court permitting a person to be added as defendant,

an opportunity to the plaintiff to amend its plaint accordingly and as

deemed necessary.

9.

Learned counsel submits that the purpose of impleading a new

party as defendant would become futile in case the necessary pleadings

for the purposes of adjudication of the trial and the determination of the

issues arising therein is not permitted to be carried out. Mr. Jha also

submits that no separate application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in