Full Judgment Text
$~55
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
Decided on:- 22 January, 2018
+ C.M. (M) 92/2018 and CM APPL.2572-2573/2018
SMT. RAVNEET KAUR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shailendra Bhardwaj, Advocate
with Mrs. Aroma S. Bhardwaj, Adv.
versus
SHRI PRITHPAL SINGH DHINGRA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Advocate with
Mr. Ravitnay Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petition assails the order dated 21.08.2017 of the trial court
declining liberty to amend the pleadings in the civil suit.
2. The petitioner is the defendant in the civil suit (Civ DJ-
613347/2016) which was instituted on 20.08.2016 by the respondent
herein seeking reliefs in the nature of decree of eviction, possession,
recovery of damages and permanent injunction against her in respect
of premises described as front side of the second floor of property
bearing No.E-7, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110027 (the suit
property). It is an admitted case of both the parties that the petitioner
(the defendant) is the daughter-in-law of the respondent (plaintiff), she
being the wife of his son Guneet Dhingra. Indisputably, she is living
CM(M) 92/2018 Page 1 of 4
in the said premises with her two minor daughters. It appears from the
submissions that the dispute arose on account of matrimonial discord
between the petitioner and her husband. It further appears that the suit
was filed on the basis of claim that the defendant has been rendered an
unauthorized occupant, her permissive use and occupation of the
premises having come to an end. The parties are locked in other
litigation including proceedings arising out of a petition filed by the
defendant under the provisions of Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
3. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff claiming himself to be
the sole, absolute and exclusive owner of the property on the strength
of a Sale Deed dated 15.12.2004 duly registered whereby it was
acquired.
4. The order under challenge was passed on 21.08.2017 by the
Additional District Judge (ADJ), whereby the application of the
defendant under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (CPC) seeking liberty to amend the written statement was
declined. The trial court referred to the ruling of the Supreme Court in
M/s. Revajeetu Builders & Developers vs. M/s. Narayanaswamy and
Sons & Ors., AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2897, to observe that the proposed
amendments had the effect of introducing a new case in the written
statement which would prejudice the plaintiff, depriving him of the
benefit of admissions made in the original pleadings which was
impermissible.
5. The amendments proposed by the defendant relate to the claim
of the plaintiff about his title to the suit property. A perusal of the
CM(M) 92/2018 Page 2 of 4
copy of the written statement filed reveals that the defendant had
conceded that the property bearing No.D-1041, First Floor, New
Friends Colony, New Delhi-110065 which was part of the property
built on the plot of land had been allotted originally in the name of
Sardar Kesar Singh Dhingra, father of the plaintiff, had fallen to his
share, after the death of the said original owner, in the wake of No-
objection given by other legal heir Surender Singh Dhingra. It was the
defendant’s case in the written statement that the said property had
been sold by the plaintiff, for consideration, on 15.12.2014 and,
thereafter, the property in suit was purchased. It does appear that in the
said written statement it was also mentioned that Sh. S. Kesar Singh
Dhingra had purchased the said plot of land in New Friends Colony
and raised construction thereupon out of the joint family fund and
hence from the proceeds of ancestral property and after his death, the
plaintiff and his brother Surender Singh Dhingra having inherited the
said property and other family business.
6. By way of amendment of the written statement, as proposed in
the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the defendant, however,
sought to narrate the history of the estate of the family from the time
of its migration to India from areas now in Pakistan, referring in that
context to the existence of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and of
the plaintiff’s father having set up business here in Delhi, the plaintiff
being a co-parcener in the HUF and a partner in the business. She
now proposes to state that the property at K-12, Kirti Nagar, New
Delhi and the property in New Friends Colony were purchased from
CM(M) 92/2018 Page 3 of 4
the inherited estate and income of joint family business in the name of
plaintiff’s father, he acting as head/ karta of HUF.
7. The learned ADJ has rejected the proposed amendments on the
grounds that these facts would bring in a new case and have the effect
of taking away the admission of the title of the plaintiff in the subject
property, inter alia, on the basis of no objection certificate given by
his brother after the death of their father.
8. In the considered view of this court, the opinion expressed by
the ADJ in the impugned order is based on correct appreciation of the
facts and law. As pointed out by the counsel for the plaintiff the
application for amendment to bring a new twist to the tale has come in
the wake of application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC of the plaintiff
seeking an order on admissions. The prayer for amendment has been
rightly rejected with reference to the law declared in M/s. Revajeetu
Builders & Developers (supra).
9. The petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- to be
deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within
two weeks.
10. The pending applications also stand disposed of.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JANUARY 22, 2018
vk
CM(M) 92/2018 Page 4 of 4