Delhi District Court
Padam Chand vs Prem Raj Choudhary on 28 September, 2012
In the Court of Pawan Kumar Matto,
Additional District Judge03 (East),
Karkardooma Court, Delhi
M. No.12/2011
Padam Chand .....Applicant
Versus
Prem Raj Choudhary .....Respondent No.1
O R D E R
28.09.2012
1. This order of mine will dispose of an application filed by the respondent no.1 U/s 151 of CPC, vide which, the respondent no.1 has sought to insert the word "No" in paragraph no.4 of preliminary objection and in paragraph no.56 of the reply on merit of an application U/o 39 rule 2A of CPC.
2. It is stated in the application that due to some inadvertence and typographical mistake in line no.13 of para no.4 of the preliminary objection word "No" got omitted and similarly in para no.56 of the reply on merit of the application U/o 39 rule 2A CPC, the word "No" got omitted and respondent no.1 is desirous to insert the word. It is further stated that the respondent no.1 has specifically denied to have done structural changes or to have created third party interest in the suit property, but, in the above M No.12/2011 Padam Chand v. Prem Raj Choudhary Page No.1 of 6 mentioned paras word "No" could not be written and prayed for allowing the respondent no.1 to insert the word "No" in the above said paras of the reply to the application U/o 39 rule 2A of CPC.
3. On the other hand, the applicant has filed the reply and contested the same on the grounds inter alia that the application is abuse of process of law, the same is not maintainable and the application has been filed, when the counsel for the applicant had pointed out the same during the argument on application U/o 39 rule 2A CPC and in the application the respondent no.1 has failed to narrate as to when he has come to understand about the need of seeking such correction and the respondent no.1 cannot be allowed to fill up the lacuna to withdraw the admission made in the reply to application U/o 39 rule 2A CPC. It is further stated that the word "No" is allowed to be inserted and the nature of the reply would be changed and the applicant will suffer an irreparable loss and prayed for dismissal of application under consideration.
4. I have heard the ld. counsels for the parties and perused the record.
5. The ld. counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that due to some typographical mistake and inadvertence the M No.12/2011 Padam Chand v. Prem Raj Choudhary Page No.2 of 6 word "No" got omitted in para 4 of the preliminary objection and para 56 of the reply on merit. He has further submitted that perusal of the other paras of the reply would show that the respondent no.1 has denied to have made structural change in the suit property. He has further submitted that the respondent no.1 will suffer an irreparable loss, if, he is not allowed to insert word "No" in para no.4 of preliminary objection and para 56 of the reply on merit of the application U/o 39 rule 2A of CPC, because in view of such omission, the complete sense of the sentence got changed and the other parts of the para of reply to the application U/o 39 rule 2A CPC may be seen and the respondent no.1 may be allowed to insert word "No" in the above said paras of the reply to application U/o 39 rule 2A CPC.
6. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the applicant has submitted that the application is not maintainable and perusal of the reply to the reply to the application U/o 39 rule 2A CPC would show that the respondent no.1 has admitted to have done structural change despite of the status quo order. She has further submitted that the respondent no. 1 had filed the reply to the application about an year back and despite of rejoinder to the reply filed by the applicant, M No.12/2011 Padam Chand v. Prem Raj Choudhary Page No.3 of 6 the respondent no.1 did not resort to amend his reply and when on dated 10.04.12. The matter was fixed for consideration on the application U/o 39 rule 2A CPC, only then, on pointing out by the counsel for the applicant that the respondent no.1 has admitted to have violated the order, the respondent no.1 has resorted to amend the reply and admission once made cannot be denied and prayed for the dismissal of the application.
7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the ld. counsels for the parties and perused the record.
8. Perusal of the record shows that the applicant has filed the present application U/o 39 rule 2A CPC stating that the respondents have violated the order dated 15.06.09. The perusal of the para 1 of the preliminary objection of the reply of application U/o 39 rule 2A CPC shows that the respondent no.1 has denied to have created third party interest in the suit property. He has also denied to have made any structural changes in the suit property and called the application U/o 39 rule 2A CPC as false and frivolous. Whereas in para 4 of the preliminary objection and in reply to para 5&6 on merit, he has stated that the respondent no.1 has made structural change in the suit property and when the M No.12/2011 Padam Chand v. Prem Raj Choudhary Page No.4 of 6 matter was fixed for consideration on the application, only then, the respondent no.1 has sought to amend his reply and sought to incorporate word "No" in para 4 of preliminary objection and para no.56 of his reply on merit of the application U/o 39 rule 2A CPC. No doubt that with the grant of permission, the admission of the respondent no.1 regarding structural change, would be converted into the denial. But, at the same time this court has also read other paras of the reply to application U/o 39 rule 2A CPC, wherein the respondent no.1 has denied to have violated the order and also denied to have done any structural change in the property. It is also pertinent to mention here that the respondent no.1 has filed the reply to this application U/o 39 rule 2A CPC on dated 13.04.11 and despite of availing sufficient time the respondent no.1 has failed to resort such amendment and when the matter was fixed for consideration on application U/o 39 rule 2A CPC on dated 10.04.12 and the counsel for the applicant pointed out about such admission, only then, the respondent no.1 filed the application under consideration u/s 151 of CPC and sought to incorporate word "No", which shows that the respondent no.1 is a negligent person. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of the argument, the respondent no.1 was also present M No.12/2011 Padam Chand v. Prem Raj Choudhary Page No.5 of 6 in the court. He has submitted that he is only 9th class passed. He cannot understand English language. So, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances in their entirety, I am of the considered view that the omission of word "No" may be the result of typographical mistake and may be result of lacking of knowledge of English language by the respondent no.1 and result of negligence of his counsel. But, such amendments are essential. But, as the respondent no.1 has filed this application after about an year from the date of filing of reply to the application U/o 39 rule 2A of CPC. So, for causing unnecessary delay, the applicant can be compensated in the form of money. Accordingly, the application filed by the respondent no.1, stands allowed, but, subject to the cost of Rs.1500/ to be given to the applicant namely Sh. Padam Chand. In the above said terms, the application U/s 151 of CPC, stands disposed off. Announced in the open Court on 28.09.12 ( Pawan Kumar Matto ) Additional District Judge03 (East)/KKD/Delhi / 28.09.12 M No.12/2011 Padam Chand v. Prem Raj Choudhary Page No.6 of 6