Full Text
Translation output
•
$-23 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS) 507/2013
DEEPAK KAPOOR
Through:
$-23 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS) 507/2013
DEEPAK KAPOOR
Through:
VERSUS
..... Appellant Mr Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate with
Ms Jagriti Ahuja, Advocate for petitioner MRS MEERA DHINGRA & ORS ..... Respondents
Ms Jagriti Ahuja, Advocate for petitioner MRS MEERA DHINGRA & ORS ..... Respondents
CORAM:
Through: Mr Nitesh Jain, Advocate for respondent
No.2, Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate for Respondents No.3 & 4.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
11.11.2013
No.2, Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate for Respondents No.3 & 4.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
11.11.2013
CM NOS. 17722/2013
The exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
FAO(OS) 507/2013
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated
29.08.2013 in I.A. No. 11432 of 2013, filed under Order VI Rule 17 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment in the plaint. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the amendments and has allowed the plaintiff I respondent No. I to add paragraphs No. 9A and 9B to the plaint.
2013:DHC:6993-DB We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. In so far as the amendments are concerned, there is no cause for us to interfere in the said order and the amended plaint incorporating the paragraphs
No. 9A & 9B shall be regarded as the plaint. However, we feel that the observations ofthe learned single judge contained in the following paragraph would not bind the parties in the suit as these are only prima facie observations:-
"The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking partition of the ancestral property. It is the defence of defendant no.J that a gift deed was executed by late Smt. Achla Kapoor and thus it will be for the defendant to prove that a valid gift deed existed in his favour. At this stage, the plaintiff is not required to seek the relief of cancellation of gift deed and for that reason the corresponding amendment cannot be disallowed
Further the amendments have been filed as the plaintiff has now been able to lay hands on the documents establishing multiple ailments oflate Smt. Achita Kapoor during the period the alleged documents were executed "
With these observations, the appeal stands disposed o£
NOVEMBER 11, 2013 vg B~ZAHMED,J ~ VIBHU BAKHRU, J
2013:DHC:6993-DB
This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated
29.08.2013 in I.A. No. 11432 of 2013, filed under Order VI Rule 17 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment in the plaint. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the amendments and has allowed the plaintiff I respondent No. I to add paragraphs No. 9A and 9B to the plaint.
2013:DHC:6993-DB We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. In so far as the amendments are concerned, there is no cause for us to interfere in the said order and the amended plaint incorporating the paragraphs
No. 9A & 9B shall be regarded as the plaint. However, we feel that the observations ofthe learned single judge contained in the following paragraph would not bind the parties in the suit as these are only prima facie observations:-
"The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking partition of the ancestral property. It is the defence of defendant no.J that a gift deed was executed by late Smt. Achla Kapoor and thus it will be for the defendant to prove that a valid gift deed existed in his favour. At this stage, the plaintiff is not required to seek the relief of cancellation of gift deed and for that reason the corresponding amendment cannot be disallowed
Further the amendments have been filed as the plaintiff has now been able to lay hands on the documents establishing multiple ailments oflate Smt. Achita Kapoor during the period the alleged documents were executed "
With these observations, the appeal stands disposed o£
NOVEMBER 11, 2013 vg B~ZAHMED,J ~ VIBHU BAKHRU, J
2013:DHC:6993-DB
JUDGMENT