Delhi District Court
Sangeeta Khanna V. Ramesh Kumar & Ors. On ... vs Ramesh Kumar & Ors on 15 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRANJAL ANEJA, LD. CIVIL JUDGE-06/
CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit. No. 1327/11 15.04.2015
SANGEETA KHANNA V. RAMESH KUMAR & ORS
ORDER
1. This composite order will decide two applications, one for amendment of WS U/o 6 Rule 17 dated 22.11.2014 and the other for summoning of witnesses U/o 16 Rule 1 (3) dated 22.11.2014, both filed on behalf of defendant.
2. It is stated in the amendment application that the defendants were to amend para 3 of the WS in order to clarify and elaborate the defence already taken. It is contended that the defendants had moved an application dated 09.07.2002 U/o 7 Rule 11 in which it was brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court that the public notice dated 15.05.1999 issued by their Late father Sh. Daulat Ram in Rashtriya Sahara was subsequently revoked by him vide public notice got issued through his Advocate and the same was published in Rashtriya Sahara on 14.06.1999 and even these facts are mentioned in the said order passed upon the application u/o VII rule 11 CPC. It is further alleged that the copy of letter dated 11.06.1999 sent by Advocate to the editor, Rashtriya Sahara, Delhi with copy of affidavit dated 11.06.1999 of deceased Daluat Ram and receipt Suit. No. 1327/11 Page No. 1 of 5 Sangeeta Khanna V. Ramesh Kumar & Ors. On 15th April, 2015 issued by Rashtriya Sahara are already on record. It is also contended that since an issue has been framed as "whether public notice dated 15.05.1999 was revoked, and its effect? OPD", therefore, the defendants may be allowed to amend their WS in this regard as the amendment is necessary for the proper adjudication of the dispute.
3. In reply it is contended that the amendment has been moved after eleven and half years of the filing of original WS and the amendment proposes a U-turn from the defence. It is further contended that defendant did not file any document with the WS much less any alleged revocation and even the application U/s 151 for bringing on record the documents and for leading secondary evidence has already been rejected. It is therefore that the present application be dismissed.
4. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
5. It is noted that the original WS was filed in the year 2002 and the issues were framed in the year 2007 while the present application has been moved in the year 2014. The present suit is already running in evidence.
6. The relevant provision i.e. Order VI rule 17 CPC, as applicable, needs to be reproduced as under for the sake of Suit. No. 1327/11 Page No. 2 of 5 Sangeeta Khanna V. Ramesh Kumar & Ors. On 15th April, 2015 convenience:-
"17. Amendment of pleadings. - The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."
7. The proviso to this Rule 17 assumes much importance since the present suit is running in trial. It is therefore that the defendants/applicants have to satisfy why they did not raise this issue of amendment for a long time after the filing of WS or even at the commencement of the trial upon framing of issues despite due diligence.
8. It is firstly important to note that the defendants/applicants are wrong in alleging that documents such as letter dated 11.06.1999 sent by Advocate to Editor Rashtriya Sahara, Delhi, copy of affidavit of deceased Daulat Ram Jain and receipt dated 12.06.1999 issued by Rashtriya Sahara are on record. It is so since defendants have already failed in their attempt to bring documents including these ones on record as their application u/s 151 CPC dated 23.05.2013 has already been dismissed vide separate order dated 11.09.2013.
Suit. No. 1327/11 Page No. 3 of 5Sangeeta Khanna V. Ramesh Kumar & Ors. On 15th April, 2015
9. Secondly, it is to be noted that in the original WS para 3, defendants have not specifically dealt with or denied or admitted the averment that defendant no. 3 debarred defendants no. 1 and 2 vide public notice in the newspaper Rashtriya Sahara dated 15.05.1999. Now, vide the proposed amendment the plaintiff wants to fill this gap by specifically incorporating that this public notice was got issued and was subsequently revoked. Defendants/applicants contend that they had already stated so about the public notice and its revocation in their application U/o 7 Rule 11 and even the order dated 20.10.2003 passed upon this application mentions the same and therefore they be allowed to incorporate these averments in their WS by way of present amendment. This contention of defendants does not hold any ground for two reasons. Firstly, that the mentioning of these averments in the order are only a reiteration of the averments of the application U/o 7 Rule 11 and not the finding and moreover this order dated 23.10.2003 was reviewed vide order dated 13.07.2004 since the review application was allowed. Secondly, there is no reason whatsoever disclosed by the defendants/applicants for not bringing this amendment at an earlier stage i.e. at the time of bringing the application U/o 7 Rule 11 or at the commencement of trial upon framing of issues in the year 2007 despite having due diligence. Framing of said issue "whether public notice dated 15.05.1999 was revoked, and its effect? OPD" does not ipso facto give defendants/applicants the right to bring such Suit. No. 1327/11 Page No. 4 of 5 Sangeeta Khanna V. Ramesh Kumar & Ors. On 15th April, 2015 amendments, as sought, after the lapse of long time of more than seven years. Also defendants have already failed in their application to bring on record these document which form the basis of the proposed averments to be incorporated.
10. In view of the above discussion, the amendment application U/o VI Rule 17 is dismissed.
11. Now coming to the other application U/o 16 Rule 1 (3) CPC, it is already seen that the application U/s 151 dated 23.05.2013 has been dismissed on 11.09.2013. Furthermore, the amendment application has been dismissed in the foregoing para. Therefore, there is no occasion to summon any person for proving any document or any fact which has not been allowed to be incorporated vide the amendment sought. Consequently this application U/o 16 Rule 1 (3) is also dismissed.
Announced in open Court (PRANJAL ANEJA)
on 15.04.2015 CIVIL JUDGE-06, CENTRAL
THC/DELHI/15.04.2015
Suit. No. 1327/11 Page No. 5 of 5
Sangeeta Khanna V. Ramesh Kumar & Ors. On 15th April, 2015