SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 1940

C. HARI SHANKAR
Vijay Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Gagninder Kr. Gandhi – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Raman Gandhi, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Manish Makhija, Advocate, for the Respondents-1 & 2.

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 Dev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top