Manas Mandir v. Lajwanti

1 The petitioner is ug^rieyedvjb^^^ prdef.'dated 26.05.2014 vide which the application filed by him under Section under Order6Rule 17ofthe CPC seeking an arriendment in his eviction had been dismissed. He is aggrieved by this finding.

2 Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by the petitioner/landlord under Section 22ofthe Delhi Rent Control Act(DRCA). The petitioner has been described 'Manas Mandir'. The sole defendant was C.M.(M)Nos.940-941/2014 Page 1 of[8] the tenant namely Sudhir Kumar Raldieja. In the course ofthe proceedings, the present application came to be filed. Averments made in the present application have been perused. Contention is that certain amendments are sought to be made in the eviction petition as also the rejoinder, verification and supporting affidavits filed by the petitioner which had been filed through its two trustees(namely K.V.Khandelwal and Devender Kumar Kainth).The said trustees had been authorized by~Resolufioh (dated 06.04.2009) of the i: f'' T- Trust to file the eviction-petition. ThdrKaffidavitsdn.support ofthe petition clearly describedfrustees as theyyu"stees;-bflthd Vishwa.Bhart^ Ved Ashram Trust. The prp'posed amendmeht0;"seel4fto place on record petitions, i-' »• H !.e U i'/ v:? i I d I'J, '{j ' f; '; rejoinders, verification and supppjtin^^ which would bear the W '. '. '.■Ji--. I.- i ! signature of Jai i^arain 'of Vishwa Bharti Ved Ashi-am'trh^t whibhutTh^ the first petition was inadvertently and due fo...a..bonafide-error left out. Submission is that admittedly the Vice-Chairman of the Trust is JaiNarainKhandelwal and the proposed amendments, if permitted, would only be to the effect that the amended petition, rejoinder, verification and the supporting affidavits already signed by the earlier two trustees (namely K.V.Khandelwal and Devender Kumar Kainth) would now also bear the signatures of the Vice- C.M. (M)Nos.940-941/2014 Page 2 of[8] 1- Chairman ofthe Trust. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support ot his submission hasplaced reliance upon(2006)1 SCO 75 UdavShankar Triyar Vs. Ram Kakwar Prasad Sin^h and Another,(2006)6 SCO 498 Baldev Sinfrh & Others Vs.Mannhar Sin^h and Another as also(2003)6 SCO 675 Surva Dev Rni Vs. Ram chander Rat and Others. Contention is that the defectsin signing orthe authority ofperson signing pleadingsis ahandmaid, ofjusticewhichisonlyaprodeto^grmality|1^^ whichisa liberallaw mustbe^eclatedin±c;66^pct

3 Reply hadTefem^filed to tfifaf^|ibiei'^^ was denied that theseareonlyb|nafideerrorsani||l|yContentioninthereplywasthat thesedefectsw.|ldamounttofi|l|l|||ept.adeadhorse.Thenatureofthe case would chang^,,^ "/a a'

4 In supportofthiLu|tai^nsriparh^xOu^el;fethe respondenthas placed reliance upon 1944 AIRlgontT^ AIR(SC)680 Modi fipmninc ar-d We.avim Mtth Comvanv Limited Ki rndha Ram and Company.AIR 1977 SC 1222 Trimhak Gnpadhar Telanv and Another Vs. Pnmnhnndra Gan^^h Rhide and Other as also AIR 1994 SC 853 Ch^naalvarava Vnidu (dead) by T.Ha Vs. Jagannnih (dead) by L.R.s and Others. Submission being that the amendment,if permitted,would change Page 3of[8] C.M.(M)Nos.940-941/2014 the very nature ofthe case;it would amountto withdrawal ofan admission which is not permitted by law.

5 Argumentshavebeenheard.Record hasbeen perused.

6 The original eviction petition has been filed Manas Mandir.Itwas an evictionpetitionunderSection22oftheDRCA.Thispetition hadbeenfiled throughK.V.KhandelwalandDevenderKumarKainth.thetwotrustees.The eviction petition disclosfesTdWlltffe^d^ (Manas Mandir)which isthe:heedfbry|piic;t?mBte and pubUcinstitition inthe furtherance ofIs-'aaivities. lfi|i;i|;tof the eviction petition while disclosing thisiced further statef;^at|ypublic trust under-the name of VishwaBhartiVed AshrainTru|has^ andthesubjectmatterof the eviction petitiA^SfffedlatSfcthis Trust ThisTrust is a religious Trust.In pursuance oftbi^s?p%A;#TntpoSe ofthe said Trust,a publictempleunderthenameandstyleof'ManasMandir'wascreated.The Resolution passed by the Public Trust dated 06.04.2009 has been detailed. Copy oftheResolution hasalso been placed onrecord.Itisstated thatthis petition has been filed against the tenant in pursuance to the aforenoted Resolution. Paae 4 of[8] C.M.(M)Nos.940-941/2014 /■ w

7 Before the evidence could begin, the aforenoted application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC came to be file. This factual position is not disputed. In this factual scenario, since the trial had not yet commenced, the applicability of the proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was mis-applied in the impugned order. That part of the order holding that the trial had commenced and the proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was an embargo in allowing the prayer maderlh'The.application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC being a mis-statemenf"of faGt|^^^^^ part of.the, order is clearly an illegality. Since there.Ts no position,(admitted by the learned counsel,'Ibr the respondeh|)%apherfrial had not yet commenced; the it 1: -'i }' s; •• proviso of Order,[6] Rule 17 of the CPC:'v^duldnot be applicable.

8 The amendments^qughf7f(^^%gptedk(S^ to be only bonafide error. Admitte^ly^the/eymtionpetition had'beeh filed through two trustees. Due to inadvertence,df-had- mentioned in the earlier petition that the Vice Chairman of the Trust is authorized to sign and verify thepleadings including the rejoinders and affidavits.

9 The submission of the non-applicant/defendant that the whole nature ofthe eviction petition will change is clearly not made out; it is not as if that the plaintiff by way of this application is seeking to change either the name C.M. (M)Nos.940-941/2014 ofthe plaintiffor the foundational facts which are laid down in the eviction petition. The petitioner/plaintiffremains the same; it is 'Manas Mandir'.In the eviction petition, 'Manas Mandir' has been described as the Mandir which has been created by the Trust in furtherance ofits aims and objectors; the Trust is Vishwa Bharti Ved Ashram Trust. The plaintiff is an integral partofthe Trust.The name ofthe Trustand the copy ofthe Resolution dated 06.04.2009 on the strength-ofb^hiefet^ trustees..had signed the present eviction petition is also-cleariy mentiotfed in the eviction petition. The rent 'f' f "'A note(01.09.1984|ieli^upbn6^feij^dnd|ntin fact'suppdrtsthe stand of the petition as ithas also been ej^|eute favour ofthe Vishwa Bharti Ved;1 I'.•!> i' !1 'j V ff Ashram Trust-Manas Mandir. Bypway^bfthis amendment, the plaintiff is ■' Vf ''A M y ■•, t,I, onlyovercoming't^eapprehensionbfj.a;'de^ ariserelating institution of the evictioh^peftiop., A^^ the eviction petition has been filed ffeojlghMfsV.two• on the strength of a Resolution passed by the Trust; the petitioner has been described as 'Manas Mandir'. He will continue to remain the same. The amendment, if permitted will only permit the petitioner to state in the eviction petition that the evictionpetitionhas been filed through the Vice Chairman ofthe Trust who is duly authorizedto file andinstitute the saidproceedings. to the C.M. (M)Nos.940-941/2014 Page 6 of[8] 1-)

10 This Court also notes that while allowing a prayer under Order[6] Rule 17 ofthe CPC,the Court is only permitting a pleading to be incorporated. It does not amount to a proof. There is a clear distinction between a pleading and a proofofa pleading. Needless to state a pleading, even ifpermitted to be incorporated,would be required to be proved as per law.

11 In the judgment of Uday Shankar Triyar (Supra), the Court while dealing with the defects-dh'signing;, authority'of a person signing the pleadings in the context^ofan applicatibhliinder Order6-Rule 17 ofthe Code, had noted that judioial'notice cahddisb)b,e;Tki<;en ofvarious defects which are routinely found in the vakalathaihasj tsuch failures sometime lead to -i il 1;^ ?' >1 ??. ' ■4 I' Ci complications at later stage. Thhblaw^ohvaniendment being'handmaid of h ■ f..-'v ' ■ ■ ' procedural law, tHe, Cop:^'%j;%)pr©|irikfe\^^ -ekercise this unfettered discretion fairly to advance.IhejGaushofjustice.tf.«• "

12 This Court is of the view that the aforenoted ratio would be fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. What is sought to be incorporated is an amendment in a procedural eiTor which had crept in because of an inadvertent or inept drafting. The nature of the eviction petition will not change. The proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC is also not applicable; impugned order was largely premised on this provision. C.M. (M) Nos.940-941/2014 13 In this background,the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. Amended petition is taken on record. This order is passed subjecttopaymentofcostofRs.10,000/-in each ofthe petitions.

14 Petitions disposed of.

INDERMEET KAUR,J MAY 11,2016 A t;.. a' // " • • -.• • -S' 1:.cfffiTS:,"