K.D. Bhalla v. S.P. Marwah

Delhi High Court · 14 Aug 2014 · 2014:DHC:3919

Valmiki J. Mehta

CM(M) No. 123/2014

2014:DHC:3919

civil appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The High Court allowed the petition to treat additional issues as covered under existing issues, permitting evidence on all relevant matters without framing separate issues.

Full Text

CM(M) 123/2014
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CM(M) No. 123/2014 & CM Nos. 2159/14(stay), 2160/14(exemption) & 3968/14 (stay)
14th August , 2014 MR. (DR.) K.D. BHALLA & ANR. ......Petitioners
Through: None.

VERSUS

MR. S.P. MARWAH & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Adv.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

JUDGMENT

1. The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated 21.12.2013 by which an application filed by the defendants/petitioners under Order 14 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for framing of additional issues has been dismissed.

2. The following are the existing issues in the suit:-

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the wall constructed by them in Khasra No. 844/2 and also to

2014:DHC:3919 provide a passage of entrance to the plaintiffs from the land of the defendants as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from obstructing the passage or entrance of the plaintiffs to approach their kitchen garden house?OPP

3. Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

4. Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act, Transfer of Property Act and Easements Act? OPD

5. Relief.”

3. In addition to the aforesaid issues now the petitioners/defendants seek to frame the following additional issues:- “i. Whether the plaintiffs and the defendants purchased the land from the common owner? OPP & D ii. Whether the defendants had agreed to have a common passage on their land?OPP iii. Whether the plots purchased by the plaintiffs and the defendants stood partitioned on the date of purchase? OPD iv. Whether this Court is competent Court to try and entertain the suit filed by the Plaintiffs? OPP & D.”

4. Counsel for the respondents agrees that the issue with respect to partition does not arise and the issue with respect to agreement to have a common passage was not pressed by the petitioners/defendants, however, the counsel for the respondent agrees and accordingly this petition can be disposed of and is disposed of by treating the additional issues which are sought to be framed as already covered under the existing issues. In my opinion, this is a very fair stand of the respondent because once the proposed issues are deemed to be covered under the existing issues, evidence on all aspects can be led by both the parties to the suit as per the pleadings.

5. In view of the above, this petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations and both the parties can lead evidence if they so want with respect to the issues which are sought to be got additionally framed but which are now deemed to be covered under the existing issues.

6. Petition is disposed of accordingly, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

AUGUST 14, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib

K.D. Bhalla v. S.P. Marwah

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation