$~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 24^th March, 2025 + CM(M) 535/2025 & CM APPL. 16894-16896/2025 RAJNI SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Anju Lal with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Ms. Shalu Lal, Advocates with petitioner in person.

versus CHATTAR SINGH SAINI (DECEASED) THR LR & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Divyakant Lahoti with Mr. Kartik, Lahoti, Ms. Shreya Goel, Mr. Manish Gandhi and Mr. Rajendra Metwani, Advocates for respondent No.1.

Mr. I. S. Chauhan and Ms. Nisha Chauhan Advocate for Respondent No. LRs. of 2, 3 and 4.

Mr. Jugal Bagga, Advocate for Respondent No.5/Babu Ram Saini Mr. Anand Prakash, Standing Counsel for MCD with Ms. Varsha Arya, Advocates for respondent No.6.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Sh. Chattar Singh Saini (since deceased) had filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. Such suit was filed way back in year 2011 and plaintiff, inter alia, sought a decree of mandatory injunction. The abovesaid suit was later on amended and plaintiff prayed for a decree of possession in respect of suit property, situated at Village Masjid Signature Not Verified CM(M) 535/2025 1 Digitally Signed Moth, Tehsil Hauz Khas, New Delhi.

2. When the abovesaid suit was at the stage of final arguments, an application was moved by Ms. Rajni Singh (petitioner herein) and Mr. Jagdish Chandra (since deceased) to intervene in the matter. They requested for their impleadment contending that the first floor and the second floor of the same property had been purchased by them vide sale deeds dated

29.10.2015 and 30.12.2016.

3. Such application was allowed by learned Trial Court on 05.08.2024 and they were, accordingly, impleaded as defendants. It seems that the abovesaid request was not even opposed by plaintiff as they did not want any further delay in the disposal of their suit.

4. Mr. Jagdish Chandra (since deceased) as defeandant No.9.

5. While permitting the impleadment, opportunity was also granted to both the defendants to file written statements.

6. However, they did not file any written statement and rather moved two different applications.

7. By virtue of one application moved under Order VII Rule 11, the newly impleaded defendants sought rejection of the plaint and by virtue of another application moved under Order I Rule 10(4) CPC read with Section 151 CPC, they contended that they could not have been called upon to file written statement as there was no amended plaint. Both the abovesaid applications were taken up by learned Trial Court and has been disposed of by common order dated 13.01.2025.

8. Such order is under challenge.

9. Ms. Anju Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance in the present petition is merely restricted to the order so far as it Signature Not Verified CM(M) 535/2025 2 Digitally Signed relates to disposal of their application moved under Order I Rule 10 (4) CPC. She submits that while disposing of the abovesaid applications, learned Trial Court has even dropped them from array of parties which has caused serious prejudice to them.

10. Order I Rule 10(4) CPC read as under:-

“10. Suit in name of wrong plaintiff.—

(1)......................... ...............................

(4) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended.—Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant.”

(5).......................”

11. Admittedly, earlier, there was an injunction order with respect to the suit property which was passed by learned Trial Court way back on 05.03.2013 and in view of the statement made by learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 3 and the statement made by defendant No.4 himself, the defendants were directed not to raise any illegal or unauthorized construction in the suit property and they were a