Delhi High Court
Ram Kishan Sharma vs Bhagwan Sharma on 17 February, 1997
Equivalent citations: 65(1997)DLT1035, 1997(41)DRJ145, (1997)116PLR79, 1997 A I H C 4307, (1997) 3 RECCIVR 78, (1997) 3 CIVLJ 860, (1997) 65 DLT 1035, (1997) 41 DRJ 145, (1997) 2 CIVILCOURTC 241
JUDGMENT Jaspal Singh, J.
(1) The plaintiff claiming himself to be the owner in possession of the plot in question filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction besides damages. In paragraph I of the plaint he alleged that he had purchased the suit plot along with other land from one Chaudhary Tek Chand and that thereafter he had sold away certain portions of the land so purchased to different persons but had retained the suit plot for himself and that on a particular dale he found the present respondents trying to make some construction over there. The respondents-defendants filed their written statement contesting the suit. In reply to the assertion of the plaintiff that he had purchased land from the person noted above, the defendants took the plea that the plaintiffs should be put to strict proof of the same. It was further stated that the plaintiff should prove his assertion with regard to his having bifurcated the land in the shape of plots and having sold them off excepting the suit plot. They also claimed themselves to be in possession of the suit properly. Interestingly, while saying all this, they admitted having purchased the suit plot from none other but the plaintiff himself. Later on issues were cast and admittedly no issue on the point of title of the plaintiff was framed. Anyhow, what is important for our purposes is that after part evidence had been recorded the defendants applied for amendment of the written statement. They wanted to substitute para 1 of the. written statement with the following: "1)In reply to para 1 of the plaintiff it is submitted that the land measuring 6 big as and 6 biswas bearing khasra Nos. 643 & 644 in the village Naseerpur (now known as Indra Park) now vest in Gram Sabha(sic.) as per the record of Khasra Girdawari in the year 1981-82 till date. Hence the plaintiff has no right title or interest in the property in question."
(2) The original paragraph runs as under: "PARANo.1 of the plaint is denied for want of knowledge. The plaintiff be put to the strict proof of the same. It is submitted that the area in which the properly in suit is situated is also known as Indra Park, Delhi."
(3) They also wanted to incorporate additional paragraph 7 in the written statement as a preliminary objection. The proposed paragraph is in the following terms:- "7)That the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit. That the property in question vest in Gram Sabha(sic.) as per the records of Khasra Girdawari. Hence the plaintiff has no right title interest in the property in suit and plaintiff can not file the present suit for possession against the defendant and the same is liable to be dismissed."
(4) The learned trial Judge, however, dismissed the application on the ground that the defendants were seeking to wriggle out of certain admissions.
(5) As already noticed above, the original written statement cannot be considered to be happily framed or worded. At one stage it denies the title of the plaintiff. At another it admits that the suit plot had been purchased from the plaintiff and none other and, to add to the confusion the plea of adverse possession is also taken. Anyhow, what I am trying to emphasis is that it is not a cast; of all admissions and no challenge to the title. And what may further be emphasized is that the defendants in the suit are not seeking to amend any of those paragraphs which contain the admissions. They remain as they are. With the result that whatever admissions have been made, they remain there, intact and untouched. The defendants arc now trying to show that the land actually belongs to Gaon Sabha (though the expression used is Gram Sabha) and that, for that reason, the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the property in question. It is not that there has been no challenge to the title in the original written statement. It is there and in this connection reference may be made to para 8 of the written statement on merits'. What is now sought to be said is that the plaintiff has no title because it is the Gaon Sabha which is the actual owner. What is also required to be noticed is that the evidence of the plaintiff has not yet concluded. It is in fact, in the process of being recorded. It cannot thus be said that the delay in moving the application is fatal. It is not. It also cannot, under the circumstances be said that by allowing the application such prejudice would be caused as cannot be compensated by way of costs. This being the position, the impugned order is set aside. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code thus stands allowed subject to, however, to payment of Rs. 5,000.00 as costs. Costs conditional and be paid before the learned trial Judge. Let the parties appear before the learned trial Judge on the date already fixed. Trial court record be sent back forthwith.
(6) This disposes of the civil revision.