Full Text
Translation output
A-66, 68, 72
% 17.8.2011
Present: Mr. S.P. Jha; Advocate for the petitioner.
+ CM (M) No. 948/2011 & CM No. 15240/2011
CM (M) No. 950/2011 & CM No. 15247/2011
CM (M) No. 951/2011 & CM No. 15263/2011
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
08.04.2011 whereby an apphcation filed by the defendant under
Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') seeking amendment of his written statement had been allowed.
Record shows that the present suit is a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 05.10.1988 filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. The subject matter of the property is the Revenue Estate of Kapashera Village Kapashera, New Delhi.
The suit had been filed in the year 1988; written statement had been filed on 24.08.1997. Thereafter the present application under
Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code had been filed on 22.11.2010 i.e. after a lapse of almost 13 years. The amendment sought was that the legal plea of Section 33 (2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954
(DLRA) had sought to be incorporated in the written statement; the additional defence sought to be raised in the written statement was that in view of embargo of Section 33 (2) of the DLRA, the suit is not maintainable. This plea was contained in para 5 of the
2011:DHC:7436 application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code.
The vehement contention of the plaintiff /petitioner is that an apphcation for amendment cannot be allowed at such a belated stage; the second contention is that this is not a mere legal objection as has been noted by the trial court; it also requires evidence.
Section 33 of the DLRA deals with the restrictions on transfer by a bhumidar; under section 33 (1) no bhumidar shall have the right to transfer by sale or gift any land other than for the purpose contained in sub clause (1) of Section 33. Section 33 (2) permits a bhumidar to transfer land if he holds less than eight acres of land if such transfer is of the entire land held by him.
There is no dispute that an agreement to sell dated
05.10.1988 was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff; this document not being in dispute, its contents alone had to be deciphered to return a finding whether the embargo of
Section 33 of the DLRA would operate in favour of the defendant or not. The statutory engraft of Section 33 of the DLRA clearly shows that no evidence is required to substantiate this submission i.e. about the bar of Section 33 of the DLRA. This has rightly been noted in the impugned order.
Impugned order has noted that an amendment even after the period of 90 days may be permitted if it is necessary to resolve the real controversy between the parties; further the purpose of allowing an amendment is to avoid multiphcity of proceedings and to prevent the parties from being relegated to any further litigation; this power is wide and wherever the Court feels that the amendment would in fact resolve the controversy between the parties, a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted and the amendment should be permitted. The impugned order had placed reliance upon the
% 17.8.2011
Present: Mr. S.P. Jha; Advocate for the petitioner.
+ CM (M) No. 948/2011 & CM No. 15240/2011
CM (M) No. 950/2011 & CM No. 15247/2011
CM (M) No. 951/2011 & CM No. 15263/2011
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
08.04.2011 whereby an apphcation filed by the defendant under
Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') seeking amendment of his written statement had been allowed.
Record shows that the present suit is a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 05.10.1988 filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. The subject matter of the property is the Revenue Estate of Kapashera Village Kapashera, New Delhi.
The suit had been filed in the year 1988; written statement had been filed on 24.08.1997. Thereafter the present application under
Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code had been filed on 22.11.2010 i.e. after a lapse of almost 13 years. The amendment sought was that the legal plea of Section 33 (2) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954
(DLRA) had sought to be incorporated in the written statement; the additional defence sought to be raised in the written statement was that in view of embargo of Section 33 (2) of the DLRA, the suit is not maintainable. This plea was contained in para 5 of the
2011:DHC:7436 application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code.
The vehement contention of the plaintiff /petitioner is that an apphcation for amendment cannot be allowed at such a belated stage; the second contention is that this is not a mere legal objection as has been noted by the trial court; it also requires evidence.
Section 33 of the DLRA deals with the restrictions on transfer by a bhumidar; under section 33 (1) no bhumidar shall have the right to transfer by sale or gift any land other than for the purpose contained in sub clause (1) of Section 33. Section 33 (2) permits a bhumidar to transfer land if he holds less than eight acres of land if such transfer is of the entire land held by him.
There is no dispute that an agreement to sell dated
05.10.1988 was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff; this document not being in dispute, its contents alone had to be deciphered to return a finding whether the embargo of
Section 33 of the DLRA would operate in favour of the defendant or not. The statutory engraft of Section 33 of the DLRA clearly shows that no evidence is required to substantiate this submission i.e. about the bar of Section 33 of the DLRA. This has rightly been noted in the impugned order.
Impugned order has noted that an amendment even after the period of 90 days may be permitted if it is necessary to resolve the real controversy between the parties; further the purpose of allowing an amendment is to avoid multiphcity of proceedings and to prevent the parties from being relegated to any further litigation; this power is wide and wherever the Court feels that the amendment would in fact resolve the controversy between the parties, a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted and the amendment should be permitted. The impugned order had placed reliance upon the
JUDGMENT
of the Apex Court in AIR 2006 SC 1647
Raiesh Kumar Aaaarwal & others Vs. K.K. Modi. Order in no manner suffers from any infirmity; it calls for no interference.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 17, 2011 a
Raiesh Kumar Aaaarwal & others Vs. K.K. Modi. Order in no manner suffers from any infirmity; it calls for no interference.
Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 17, 2011 a