Full Text
Translation output
$-10 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS) 390/2013 &CMs 13274-75/2013
RAJESH SACHDEVA Appellant
Through Mr.Bhagat Singh, Advocate
FAO(OS) 390/2013 &CMs 13274-75/2013
RAJESH SACHDEVA Appellant
Through Mr.Bhagat Singh, Advocate
VERSUS
BHARATBUILDTECHPltd &ANR Respondents
Through Nemo
Through Nemo
CORAM*
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI
ORDER o/„ 30.08.2013
The appellant is aggrieved by an order of the learned Single
Judge allowing an apphcation for amendment of the suit. It is contended that the amendment in question has resulted in prejudice, since anew prayerhas beenpermittedwhich is contrary to provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the amendment is time barred and ought not to have been allowed having regard to the facts and circumstances.
The plaintiffhad sought for various reliefs including mandatory injunction directing the defendants to sign and execute atripartite agreement in accordance with the draft. The said agreement
2013:DHC:7313-DB is in existence. In the original suit, the plaintiffhad mentioned about certain receipts dated le'" August, 2007 and further stated that on 1^'
September, 2007, the cause of action arose when the defendant including the present appellant refused to execute the agreement to sell. Another date 11* September, 2002 was also mentioned.
The impugned orderrevealedthatthe learned Smgle Judgetook into account the substance of the pleadings, specially the averments made in paragraph 23 ofthe plaint to state that the receipt has been described and consequently, the claim for amendment to incorporate the receipt and describe it in the relief clause did not introduce any new relief but merely sought to expand the existing pleadings and seek supplementary reliefon that basis.
This Court is ofthe opinionthat the appeal is misconceived and that the arguments in its support have no merit.
The question of applicability of Order 2Rule 2CPC does not arise in the circumstances which have presented.
Likewise, the question of claim being time barred is without any merit. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J NAJMIWAZIRI, J AUGUST 30,2013
RN
2013:DHC:7313-DB
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI
ORDER o/„ 30.08.2013
The appellant is aggrieved by an order of the learned Single
Judge allowing an apphcation for amendment of the suit. It is contended that the amendment in question has resulted in prejudice, since anew prayerhas beenpermittedwhich is contrary to provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.
Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the amendment is time barred and ought not to have been allowed having regard to the facts and circumstances.
The plaintiffhad sought for various reliefs including mandatory injunction directing the defendants to sign and execute atripartite agreement in accordance with the draft. The said agreement
2013:DHC:7313-DB is in existence. In the original suit, the plaintiffhad mentioned about certain receipts dated le'" August, 2007 and further stated that on 1^'
September, 2007, the cause of action arose when the defendant including the present appellant refused to execute the agreement to sell. Another date 11* September, 2002 was also mentioned.
The impugned orderrevealedthatthe learned Smgle Judgetook into account the substance of the pleadings, specially the averments made in paragraph 23 ofthe plaint to state that the receipt has been described and consequently, the claim for amendment to incorporate the receipt and describe it in the relief clause did not introduce any new relief but merely sought to expand the existing pleadings and seek supplementary reliefon that basis.
This Court is ofthe opinionthat the appeal is misconceived and that the arguments in its support have no merit.
The question of applicability of Order 2Rule 2CPC does not arise in the circumstances which have presented.
Likewise, the question of claim being time barred is without any merit. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J NAJMIWAZIRI, J AUGUST 30,2013
RN
2013:DHC:7313-DB
JUDGMENT