Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Vijay Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Gagninder Kr. Gandhi - Respondent
CM (M) 1030 of 2021 & CM Appl. 40806 of 2021
Decided On : 04-07-2022
ORDER VI RULE 17 CPC - AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS - SUBJECT MATTER - RIGHT TO USE REAR PARKING SPACE IN PERPETUITY - FACTS - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP OF REAR PARKING SPACE - APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF PRAYER CLAUSE TO CLAIM RIGHT TO USE THE PARKING SPACE IN PERPETUITY - HELD - AMENDMENT DOES NOT ALTER THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF THE SUIT - APPLICATION ALLOWED.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of ownership of the rear parking space in the suit property on the basis of an undertaking executed by the defendant's mother. The defendant contested the suit, alleging that the undertaking was fabricated and forged. Before the commencement of trial, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the prayer clause in the plaint to claim a right to use the parking space in perpetuity instead of ownership. The trial court rejected the application, holding that the amendment would change the nature and character of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the amendment sought by the plaintiff did not alter the nature and character of the suit. The plaintiff was essentially ventilating the rights which, according to him, enured in his favour, by virtue of the undertaking executed by the defendant's mother. Treating the nature and character of the suit as changed, merely because the plaintiff, instead of claiming ownership over the rear parking space on the basis of the undertaking, chose to claim only a right to use the rear parking space in perpetuity, would be an unduly restricted manner of applying Order VI Rule 17, as either claim was predicated on the undertaking and on the undertaking alone.
Issues: Whether the amendment sought by the plaintiff altered the nature and character of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amendment sought by the plaintiff did not alter the nature and character of the suit. The plaintiff was essentially ventilating the rights which, according to him, enured in his favour, by virtue of the undertaking executed by the defendant's mother. Treating the nature and character of the suit as changed, merely because the plaintiff, instead of claiming ownership over the rear parking space on the basis of the undertaking, chose to claim only a right to use the rear parking space in perpetuity, would be an unduly restricted manner of applying Order VI Rule 17, as either claim was predicated on the undertaking and on the undertaking alone.
Final Decision: The court allowed the plaintiff's application for amendment of the prayer clause in the plaint.
JUDGMENT
1. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge ("the learned Trial Court", hereinafter) has, vide the impugned order dated 22nd October, 2021 in CS DJ 10306/2016 (Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kumar Gandhi & ors.), dismissed an application filed by the petitioner, as the plaintiff in the suit, under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking to amend the suit.
Facts
2. CS DJ 10306/2016 has been filed by the petitioner, as plaintiff, against Respondents 1, 2 and 3 as Defendants 1, 2 and 3 therein. The issue in controversy being the rejection of the petitioner's application for amendment of the suit, it is necessary to know, exactly, at the outset, the case set up by the petitioner, as plaintiff.
The Plaint
3. The present proceedings deal with a property situated at A-148, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024 ("the suit property"). The petitioner averred, in the plaint, that he had, vide sale deeds dated 11th July, 2001 and 7th August, 2003, purchased the first and second floors, as well as the terrace of the suit property from Sumitra Devi, the mother of Respondent 3. The petitioner asserted that, while executing the aforesaid sale deeds, Sumitra Devi had also executed an undertaking on 11th July, 2001, wherein she undertook that (i) neither she, nor her legal heirs, would sell or transfer the ground floor of the suit property, without giving the petitioner a first option of purchase and (ii) in the event of sale by Respondent 3 or by her legal heirs of the ground floor of the suit property to any person other than the petitioner, the petitioner would have the right and authority to enjoy the parking space in the rear side on the ground floor of the suit property as its owner.
4. Sumitra Devi died on 21st April, 2012, intestate, resulting in Respondent 3, his brother and his seven sisters becoming co-owners, by succession, of the ground floor of the suit property. The seven sisters and their brother having relinquished their undivided share in the ground floor of the suit property, with all rights, title, interest and privileges, in favour of Respondent 3, Respondent 3 became the absolute owner of the ground floor of the suit property.
5. The plaint alleged that, in violation of the undertaking given by Sumitra Devi on 11th July, 2001, Respondent 3 executed a sale deed, dated 26th August, 2014, in respect of the suit property, in favour of Respondents 1 and 2, which included the rear side parking area. The petitioner asserted, in para 10 of the plaint, that Respondent 3 was "bound to specify in the sale deed dated 26.08.2014 executed by him is the owner of the suit property in favour of the defendant No. 1 and 2 that plaintiff is the owner of the parking space on the rear side of the suit property". Para 11 of the plaint complained that "defendant No. 1 and 2 being not the party to the undertaking dated 11.07.2001 executed in favour of the plaintiff by the then owner of the suit property who happens to be the mother of the defendant No. 3 are not allowing the plaintiff to use the parking space in the rear side of the suit property as the owner". Thus, alleges para 13 of the plaint, "the legal right of the plaintiff in the rear side of the parking space on the ground floor of the property to use the same as its owner has been infringed by the defendant No. 3 which was created on execution of the undertaking on 11.07.2001 which is enforceable against him being the legal heir of the executed who is recorded to be bound by the same and was also aware at the time of closure of the litigations, had acted against it". Para 15 of the plaint, which sets out the various occasions when the cause of action, for filing the plaint, arose, asserts, inter alia, that "the cause of action for filing the present suit arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants when the defendant No. 3 executed the sale deed dated 26.08.2014 in favour of the defendant No. 2 and 3 in respect of the suit property wh
An amendment of the pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not alter the nature and character of the suit if the amendment is predicated on the same facts and the same document.
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC should be allowed if necessary for determining real issues, provided they do not cause injustice to the other party.
Amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC should be allowed if necessary for justice and do not change the nature of the suit.
Point of Law : In case there is no proper pleading to support the relief as claimed in petition, then respondent has no opportunity to resist or oppose such relief, and if court considers and grant s....
The court emphasized the importance of bona fide amendments and a liberal approach to avoid multiplicity of litigations while considering applications for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC.
Amendments to plaints should be liberally allowed, provided they do not cause injustice, ensuring precise determination of legal rights in ongoing litigation.
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which reads as amendment of pleadings.
The Court may allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings for just decision of the case and to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
