Full Text
Translation output
$3 3 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 051!: December,°201 7 CM(M) 1379/20 17 and CM 44211-44212/2017
SUNETA LOONA & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pradeep K. Bakshi and Mr. Puneet Khurana, Advocates
IQ
Date of Decision: 051!: December,°201 7 CM(M) 1379/20 17 and CM 44211-44212/2017
SUNETA LOONA & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pradeep K. Bakshi and Mr. Puneet Khurana, Advocates
IQ
VERSUS
MANU KUMAR & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: MiP,awan Mathur, Standing Counsel toi R-3/DDA
C ORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GUBA.
Through: MiP,awan Mathur, Standing Counsel toi R-3/DDA
C ORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GUBA.
JUDGMENT
(OR'L The civil suit (CS no.88/20! 7instituted by the first and second respondents herein;(plaintiffs)' in th year 2001 seeking the t..' relief of declaration respecting the ight, title and interest in the subject property. The suit is being contested by the defendants which includes the petitioners herein. It ie gf4hententions urged by the said defendants has been that they are in possession of the subject property (a vacant plot of land) and the suit seeking the relief of declaration simplicitor without the consequential relief could not be maintained, reference being made in this regard to Section. 34 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963.
On the application of the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the learned trial court has
CM(M) 1379/2017 Page 1 of2
2017:DHC:8816 allowed •amendment of the• plaint at the instance of the said plaintiffs
(respondents herein), so as to add the consequential relief for a decree of possession. It is the said amendment to which exception is taken, by the petitioners at hand, the argument 'primarily being that the defect could not have been allowed to be rectified as the relief is hit by the provision contained in Order II Rule 2 CPC.
The petition is devoid of substance. The 'learned trial court has exercised its judicial discretion appropriately which does not call for any interference. Pertinent to note the amendment has been allowed at a stage when suit has nbt yt nteed trial, even the issues not
I
' Y having been framed till date ..mill The petition and tháppIf i?fi led therewitháre thus
I.
• dismissed. •1•
DECEMBER 05, 2017 yg
Specific Relief Act, 1963.
On the application of the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the learned trial court has
CM(M) 1379/2017 Page 1 of2
2017:DHC:8816 allowed •amendment of the• plaint at the instance of the said plaintiffs
(respondents herein), so as to add the consequential relief for a decree of possession. It is the said amendment to which exception is taken, by the petitioners at hand, the argument 'primarily being that the defect could not have been allowed to be rectified as the relief is hit by the provision contained in Order II Rule 2 CPC.
The petition is devoid of substance. The 'learned trial court has exercised its judicial discretion appropriately which does not call for any interference. Pertinent to note the amendment has been allowed at a stage when suit has nbt yt nteed trial, even the issues not
I
' Y having been framed till date ..mill The petition and tháppIf i?fi led therewitháre thus
I.
• dismissed. •1•
DECEMBER 05, 2017 yg
CM(M) 1379/2017 Page 2of2
2017:DHC:8816
2017:DHC:8816