Harish Kumar Nimesh vs Ved Prakash Sharma on 20 January, 2023

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Harish Kumar Nimesh vs Ved Prakash Sharma on 20 January, 2023

Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela

                          $~54
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +    CM(M) 87/2023
                               HARISH KUMAR NIMESH                         ..... Petitioner
                                             Through: Mr. Ashok Tobria and Mr. Pradeep
                                                      Kumar Pathak, Advs.
                                             versus

                               VED PRAKASH SHARMA                  ..... Respondent
                                            Through: None.
                               CORAM:
                               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
                                            ORDER

% 20.01.2023 [ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ] CM APPL. 2944/2023 (Exemption)

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 87/2023 & CM APPL. 2943/2023 (Stay)

3. The petitioner challenges the order dated 10.05.2022 in CS DJ No. 894/2018 titled as "Ved Prakash Sharma vs. Sudha Nimesh & Ors." whereby the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, 1908 filed by the petitioner who was defendant No.4 in the Trial court, seeking amendment in the written statement was dismissed.

4. Mr. Tobria, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the consideration of the suit property noted as Rs.40 lacs was incorrect, whereas, actually it was Rs. 75 lacs and only with a view to save property tax, the present petitioner had mentioned lower amount of the sale consideration.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Date:21.01.2023 CM(M) 87/2023 1 17:09:58

5. Mr. Tobria also submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid statement of respondent/plaintiff, the respondent had given a hand written note assuring that the sale consideration was in fact Rs.75 lacs and that the respondent would pay the remaining amount at the time of taking the possession of the suit property.

6. Mr. Tobria submits that this fact was already brought to the notice of the learned Trial Court and not denied by the respondent/plaintiff. It is only with respect to the aforesaid hand written note that the petitioner filed the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement.

7. Mr. Tobria submits that this was not considered by the learned Trial Court in the impugned order.

8. Mr. Tobria also submits that trial has not yet commenced and the matter is listed for admission / denial of documents and therefore the amendments ought to have been allowed.

9. Issue notice.

10. On the petitioner taking steps within one week, let notice be served to respondent through all permissible modes. Additionally, through learned counsel appearing for the respondent before the learned Trial Court.

11. Reply, if any, be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter.

12. List on 05.04.2023.

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J JANUARY 20, 2023/ms Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Date:21.01.2023 CM(M) 87/2023 2 17:09:58

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders