* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: January 20, 2023 + CS (OS) NO. 1953/2013, I.A.1794/2021

1. MEERA JAIN W/o Late Mr. Vinod Jain R/O A-1/268, Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi – 110029

2. SUNITA JAIN W/o Mr. Sudershan Jain R/o 2427, Pelham Drive Houston, Texas, USA (Through Her Attorney, Mrs. Meera Jain)

..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Irfan Ahmed & Ms. Shweta Saini, Advocates.

versus

1. ANITA GUPTA W/o Mr. Anil Gupta R/o First Floor A-1/66, Safdarjung Enclave New Delhi – 110029

2. THE SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Hauz Khas New Delhi - 110016

3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER P.S. Safdarjung Enclave Sarojini Nagar New Delhi.

Signature Not Verified CS (OS) NO. 1953/2013 Page 1 of 4 Digitally Signed ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vikas Arora, Ms. Radhika Arora, Mr. Piyush Kumar & Mr.

Siddharth Singh, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G E M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

I.A. 4155/2019

1. An application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”), has been filed on behalf of the defendant No.1 for rejection of the plaint dated 17^th August, 2017 (sic) 2018.

2. It is submitted in the application that the plaintiffs had originally filed a suit for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction in which Smt. Sundari Devi Garg was defendant No. 1. However, on the application of the plaintiffs vide Order dated 18^th August, 2015 her name was deleted from the array of parties, by this Court. Amended memo of parties was also filed on 15^th May, 2017.

3. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the suit which was allowed and the amended plaint titled as “Smt. Meera Jain & Anr. Vs. Smt. Sundari Devi Garg & Ors.” was filed. Despite the name of Smt. Sundari Devi Garg having deleted, she was again mentioned as defendant No.1 in the amended plaint. There were allegations and averments made against her in the plaint and even the relief Signature Not Verified CS (OS) NO. 1953/2013 Page 2 of 4 Digitally Signed had been sought against her vide Prayer (a). It is asserted that the malafides of the plaintiffs in writ large as much as despite knowing that Smt. Sundari Devi Garg has been deleted, still in order to confuse and mislead, the plaintiffs have filed an amended suit by making Smt. Sundari Devi Garg as a party. There is no order/ direction of this Court directing reimpleadment of Smt. Sundari Devi Garg.

4. It is further asserted that plaintiffs being aware that Smt. Sundari Devi Garg (whose name they have got deleted) is a necessary party since they were seeking a relief of partition by enforcing MoU dated 12^th March, 2008 and the rights of the parties are subject to the said MoU/ Family Settlement, have intentionally shown her as defendant No.1 despite deletion. A prayer is, therefore, made that the amended plaint dated 17^th August, 2018 filed by the plaintiffs, may be rejected.

5. Submissions heard

6. The record shows that Smt. Sundari Devi Garg who had been originally impleaded as defendant No.1 in the original suit for Permanent and Mandatory Injunction, was deleted vide Order dated 18^th August, 2015. The amended memo of parties was filed on 15^th May, 2017, wherein Smt. Anita Gupta was shown as defendant No.1. Thereafter, amendment application was filed for amendment of the plaint which was allowed on 10^th August, 2018. The amended plaint so filed included the name of Smt. Sundari Devi Garg as defendant No.1 and there were allegations made against her and the relief was also sought against her for partition by enforcing the MoU dated 12^th March, 2008.

7. The perusal of the amended plaint filed on 17^th August, 2018 shows that the plaint contained the names of four defendants including Smt.

Signature Not Verified CS (OS) NO. 1953/2013 Page 3 of 4 Digitally Signed Sundari Devi Garg being defendant No.1. However, the correction in the amended plaint was sought on 11^th Apri