Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 10th December, 2019
DROPTI DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Naresh Thanai & Ms. Khushboo Singh, Advocates. (M:8890599870)
Through: None.
JUDGMENT
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CM(M) 1759/2019 & CM APPL. 53046/2019
2. The grievance in the present case is that the amendment which was sought was merely a typographical error which has been construed to be an admission. The Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent etc and other amounts as also damages and mesne profits in the suit. The Plaintiff sought possession of the suit property which is described in the plaint as two tin sheds one room and one-bathroom forming part of property bearing no.84-A/l,(PlotNo.65), Meenakshi Garden, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi- 110018 (`suit property’). The case of the Plaintiff itself is that the monthly use and occupation charges are Rs.25,000/- as per paragraph 27 of the plaint. In the written statement in paragraph 27, the Defendant denied that the use and occupation charges would be Rs.25,000/- per month. The said paragraph reads as under:
27. Para no. 27 of the plaint is wrong and denied. It is 2019:DHC:6827 wrong that prevailing market rent for the suit property is 25,000/- per month exclusive electricity charges. The market rent of the suit property is near about Rs. 50,000 per month. In the replication, the Plaintiff states as under:
27. Para 27 of the written statement is wrong and denied and corresponding para of the plaint are reaffirmed as correct. It is denied that market rent of the suit property is near about Rs.50,000/- per month.
3. The above two paragraphs reflect the `comedy of errors’ that began with the written statement and was perpuated in the replication. The process of denials in pleadings which has become so inherent to the legal process, resulted in a completely unintended consequence. The Plaintiff intended to claim Rs. 25,000/- as the prevalent market rent and the Defendant intended to state that the market rent is Rs. 5,000/- which due to an error was reflected as Rs.50,000/-. The error did not stop here. The Plaintiff, not realising that the amount of market rent suggested by the Defendant is double the amount suggested by it in the plaint, went on to deny the same in a mechanical fashion. The trial court considers the amount mentioned in the written statement as being an admission and rejects the prayer to correct the same. The observation of the trial court reads:
4. In the context of the case and the stand of the respective parties, the mention of the amount Rs.50,000/- is nothing but a typographical error as the rent which was being paid prior to the said period was approximately Rs.3,800/- per month and the Defendant intended to only state that the market rent is only about Rs 5,000/- considering that the property consists of only two tin sheds. It is submitted by Mr. Naresh Thanai, ld. counsel that at the time when the arguments were heard in the Order 15 (A) CPC application filed by the Plaintiff, this error was noticed and amendment was sought to amend Rs.50,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. The same was not permitted on the ground that the same constitutes an admission.
5. Considering the overall contest of the order prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that the mention of Rs. 50,000/- appears to be a typographical error. Accordingly, issue notice to the Respondent. Ld. counsel for the Respondent appearing in the Trial Court be also served in addition. The proceedings before the ld. Trial Court insofar as the order 15(A) application is concerned would continue. However, fixing the use and occupation charges under Order 15(A) if done, shall be as per the averment of the Plaintiff in the plaint i.e, Rs25,000/-. The mention of Rs.50,000/- in paragraph 27, shall not be considered as an admission for the purpose of the said application.
6. List on 15th April, 2020. Dasti.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE DECEMBER 10, 2019