Delhi District Court
Nirmal Goel vs Dda And Ors on 15 September, 2012
Suit No. 29/2007
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI, CIVIL JUDGE,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. 29/2007
Nirmal Goel .....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DDA and Ors. .....DEFENDANT
ORDER: By this order I shall dispose of an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code moved by the plaintiff.
1. The present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining defendant no. 2 from raising illegal construction over suit property and further to restrained defendant no. 1 from transferring the suit property to anyone except the plaintiffs. It may also be mentioned here that after the filing of this application another application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was allowed whereby DDA has been impleaded as defendant no. 3 on 22.04.2004.
2. By the present application plaintiffs seek to amend their plaint in view of subsequent events i.e issuance of letter dated 15.09.1999 from MCD/defendant no. 1 whereby defendant no.1 has cancelled the Nirmal Goel Vs. MCD 1/5 Suit No. 29/2007 auction sale to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are also seeking amendment in their plaint to being on record certain facts which are stated to be necessary to determine the real question of controversy but which were inadvertently left out from the initial plaint.
3. Plaintiff seeks to add the reliefs of mandatory injunction and possession to title of their plaint. Apart from incorporating the subsequent events, plaintiffs also seek to amend paragraphs 3 and 10 of their plaint to clarify the facts regarding the fact of auction sale and payment of arrears of property tax in respect of the suit property. Plaintiffs further seek to add certain paragraphs after para 15 to state various correspondences between plaintiffs and defendant no. 1.
In the prayer clause, plaintiffs are seeking to add relief of mandatory injunction directing defendant no.1 and defendant no. 3 to execute a proper sale deed in plaintiffs' favour. Plaintiffs also seek to add mandatory injunction directing all the defendants to remove the illegal construction raised on the suit property. Plaintiffs further seek to add in the prayer clause relief of permanent injunction against defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 3 restraining them from mutating the suit property in the name of defendant no. 2. They also seek to add the prayer for permanent injunction restraining defendant no. 2 from Nirmal Goel Vs. MCD 2/5 Suit No. 29/2007 transferring, selling, etc the suit property. Plaintiffs are further seeking to add the relief of possession qua the suit property in their favour.
4. In their reply defendant no.1 had objected to the application on the ground that the same will change the nature of the suit.
5. In his reply defendant no. 2 objects to the present application on the ground that the proposed amendments are not necessary for disposal of the present suit. It is also objected on the ground that the same has not been signed by a competent person. It is also stated that plaintiffs do not have any cause of action and therefore, the present application is not maintainable. It is stated that the amendment will also amount to withdrawal of admission by the plaintiff.
6. In reply by defendant no.3, it is stated plaintiffs are setting up entrely new case by way of such amendments. It is also stated that the application is not maintainable because the suit property belongs to DDA.
7. Heard and perused the record carefully.
8. Broadly there are two types of amendments that the plaintiff is seeking by the application. One pertains to clarifying and giving better details of the case of the plaintiffs. It is stated that the same though necessary were inadvertently left out. These amendments sought appear to be Nirmal Goel Vs. MCD 3/5 Suit No. 29/2007 necessary to elucidate the stand of the plaintiffs and do not set up any new case as is alleged by the defendants. It is settled law that the objective of the Court is to do justice and not to punish parties for their mistakes. Accordingly amendments in paragraphs 3, 10 (a), (b), (c) and 15 (a) deserve to be allowed.
9. Second type of amendments are on account of subsequent events whereby the sale in the favour of plaintiff has been cancelled. The main questions in controversy in the present case are whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit property and whether the occupation of suit property by defendant no. 2 is unauthorized. The subsequent event of cancellation of the sale in the favour of plaintiffs has direct bearing on these issues. The amendments are necessary not only for proper adjudication of the real questions in controversy between the parties but also for avoiding multiplicity of cases.
However plaintiffs have not sought any amendment in the valuation clause and they are, therefore, directed to value the suit properly and make necessary changes in the valuation clause also.
10.In terms of these directions, plaintiffs are allowed all the proposed amendments subject to costs of Rs 500/ to be deposited with DLSA. Nirmal Goel Vs. MCD 4/5 Suit No. 29/2007 Application under Order VI Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code is accordingly disposed of.
Pronounced in the open court today on 15.09.2012 at 04:00 PM (RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI) CIVIL JUDGE (WEST) THC, DELHI/15.09.2012 Nirmal Goel Vs. MCD 5/5