Ayesha Siddiqui v. Rambir Singh

1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 23.12.2021 in Suit NO. 1193/2019 titled “Rambir Singh Vs. Ayesha Siddiqui” whereby the learned Trial Court permitted the respondent who is representative of the deceased plaintiff and happens to be the brother of the respondent herein, whereby the site plan which was originally filed by the deceased Rambir Singh along with the plaint is permitted to be replaced with a fresh site plan sought to be filed by the respondent. [ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that the application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC, 1908 seeking replacement of the existing site plan with the site plan freshly got drafted by the representative of the deceased plaintiff could not have been placed on record since it would amount to changing the description of the property, as also caused prejudice to the petitioner/defendant inasmuch as the written statement based on the existing site plan already stands filed by the petitioner/defendant on record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the LRs of the deceased original plaintiff submits that fresh site plan which is being sought to be placed on record is merely a site plan which brings out the clearer picture of the disputed subject suit property and no amendment in the plaint is being sought.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submits that no prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner/defendant inasmuch as the said site plan is yet to undergo the rigors of the trial and the petitioner/defendant would be at liberty to question the veracity and the correctness of the description of the subject suit property in the fresh site plan.

5. This Court has heard the arguments of the respective counsels as also perused the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court.

6. This Court has closely scrutinized the original site plan at page 37 of the present petition which is a detailed site plan showing the suit property as also the detailed description of the names of the properties owned by others. The plan at page 37 is detailed in respect also of the description of the surrounding area including the road etc.

7. This Court has also examined the disputed site plan which has been placed on record vide the impugned order which is at page 160 of the present petition. On a plain perusal of the site plan it comes to fore that the same is absolutely bereft of any details as was mentioned in the original site plan at page 37 and appears to be a method of covering up any deficiency or admissions which may have occurred in the original site plan.

8. A bare perusal of the second site plan also brings to fore that the details in respect of the surrounding areas with the names of properties owned by others have also been obliterated. It does not seem to be natural.

9. This Court could have considered, such fresh site plan being filed to correct the clerical errors or misdescriptions so far as the property numbers are concerned. However, the fresh site plan is bereft of any such material particulars.

10. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that no prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner/defendant in case the fresh site plan is brought on record is rejected. This is for the reason that the advantage or dis-advantage or any other material particulars which may have arisen in favour of the petitioner/defendant in respect of the original site plan, may get diluted or obliterated in case the second site plan is permitted to be placed on record.

11. No doubt that the said site plan would be subject to the rigors of the trial, cross examination by the petitioner/defendant, however, any such move by the subsequent persons, who stepped into the shoes of the deceased original plaintiff, has to be dealt with by this Court with great caution and circumspection.

12. The impugned order is bereft of any such reasoning and in a perfunctory and routine manner has permitted the filing of the said site plan without considering the vast difference in the description and other details between the two site plans.

13. It is quite obvious from the plain reading of the impugned order that there has been a complete non-application of mind in respect of the observations made by this Court.

14. Learned Trial Court has also perfunctorily differentiated the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel to buttress their arguments and has not considered the purport of the same.

15. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 23.12.2021 is rendered unsustainable in law and is consequently quashed and set aside