Delhi District Court
S. Deep Singh Sethiv vs Bhajan Kaur on 17 August, 2016
S. DEEP SINGH SETHIV Vs BHAJAN KAUR
CIV DJ No. 10561/16
17.08.2016
ORDER ON THE APPLICATION U/O I RULE 10 & U/O VI RULE 17 r/w
Section 151 CPC:
Vide this Order, I shall dispose off the application U/O I Rule 10 and
U/O VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC filed by plaintiff/applicant for impleadment
of proposed defendants no. 2 to 4 and to amend the plaint accordingly.
2 It is stated in the instant applications that plaintiff has filed the suit for
possession, permanent injunction and damages/mesne profit against the defendant.
It is further stated that the defendant no. 1 was the sole owner of property no. 4,
area measuring 65 sq. yards, Khasra No. 18/16, BlockC, Vikas Vihar, Chander
Vihar, Nilothi Extn., New Delhi41. It is further stated that defendant no. 1 entered
into one Collaboration Agreement dated 06.09.2011 with proposed defendant no. 2
namely S. Amrik Singh.
3 It is further stated in the instant application that as per the above said
S. Deep Singh Sethi Vs Smt. Bhajan Kaur CIV DJ No. 10561/16
Collaboration Agreement, it was agreed that the proposed defendant no. 2 S. Amrik
Singh would construct four storied building with common parking at ground floor
at his own cost and expenses. It is further stated that after the construction of the
said floors, the defendant no. 1 is liable to be owner of two floors (ground and
second floors) only leaving ownership right of the land. It is further stated that the
rest two floors (first and third floors with roof rights besides common parking at
ground floor) will be owned by the proposed defendant no. 2.
4 It is further stated in the instant application that proposed defendant no.
2 S. Amrik Siingh, the builder forwarded proposal after construction of the floors to
the defendant no. 1 to execute conveyance/title deeds of the two floors (first and
third floors) in pursuance of Collaboration Agreement in favour of proposed
defendant no. 3 namely S. Manmohan Singh. It is further stated that defendant no.
1 executed the conveyance/title deeds in respect of two floors i.e. first and third
floors with roof rights with common parking, a ground floor, like notarized GPA,
Agreement to Sell & Purchase, SPA, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter, Deed of
Will and Indemnity Bond, all dated 30.03.2012. It is further stated that in
S. Deep Singh Sethi Vs Smt. Bhajan Kaur CIV DJ No. 10561/16
pursuance of Collaboration Agreement, the proposed defendant no. 3 paid in
addition Rs. 1,50,000/ to defendant no. 1.
5 It is further stated in the instant application that thereafter, the said
porposed defendant no. 3 namely S. Manmohan Singh out of above two floors, sold
the first floor, with parking on ground floor to the proposed defendant no. 4,
namely Sh. Ashwani Kumar, by virtue of duly notarized GPA, Agreement to Sell &
Purchase, SPA, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter, Deed of Will and Indemnity
Bond, all dated 04.04.2012 after receiving total consideration amount from the
proposed defendant no. 4 namely Sh. Ashwani Kumar.
6 It is further stated in the instant application that thereafter, proposed
defendant no. 4 Sh. Ashwani Kumar sold the above said first floor with parking to
the plaintiff herein by virtue of duly notarized GPA, Agreement to Sell & Purchase,
SPA, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter, Deed of Will and Indemnity Bond, all
dated 25.05.2013 and handed over the peaceful vacant possession of suit property
to the plaintiff with complete previous chain of title documents.
7 It is further stated in the instant application that the notarized
S. Deep Singh Sethi Vs Smt. Bhajan Kaur CIV DJ No. 10561/16
Indemnity Bond dated 30.03.2012, executed by the defendant no. 1 in favour of the
proposed defendant no. 3 speaks volume about the intention and authenticity of
transfer of the floors. It is further stated believing upon the contents of the said
Indemnity Bond, the subsequent purchasers, including the plaintiff, believe the
intention and authenticity of transfer of the suit property in the present case. It is
further stated that in the present facts and circumstances, the proposed defendants
no. 2, 3 and 4 are the necessary party to establish the right of the plaintiff.
8 It is further stated in the instant application that plaintiff has been in
peaceful possession of the suit property since the date of its purchase. It is further
stated that on 01.06.2013, the defendant no. 1 with malafide intention started
obstruction to enter the suit property through common passage/stairs. It is further
stated that plaintiff has grievances against defendant no. 1 only and not from
previous owners, hence, the plaintiff had only impleaded the defendant no. 1 as a
party. It is further stated that the chain of documents of previous owners is filed
already by the plaintiff with his plaint. It is further stated that this obstruction
caused inconvenience to the plaintiff to access the suit property and in this way, the
S. Deep Singh Sethi Vs Smt. Bhajan Kaur CIV DJ No. 10561/16
plaintiff lost his possession over the suit property, however, thereupon, the locks of
the plaintiff were lying because some articles of plaintiff were also lying on the suit
property.
9 It is further stated in the instant application that this Court vide order
dated 05.11.2004 opined that the previous owners of the suit property should be
impleaded as parties in the suit and further opined that the plaintiff should file suit
for specific performance. It is further stated that in the event of impleadment of
proposed defendants no. 2 to 4, the plaintiff shall be in a better position to prove his
ownership right.
10 It is further stated in the instant application that in view of above
circumstances, the plaintiff propose to amend memo of parties and add defendants
no. 2 to 4 after defendant no. 1 (initially she was defendant). After amendment, the
memo of parties kindly be read as follows:
S. DEEP SINGH SETHI
S/O S. HARJEET SINGH
R/O C181, FRONT SIDE,
FIRST FLOOR, HARI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI110064. .......PLAINTIFF
S. Deep Singh Sethi Vs Smt. Bhajan Kaur CIV DJ No. 10561/16
VERSUS
1.SMT. BHAJAN KAUR W/O LATE RANJIT SINGH R/O PLOT NO. 4, KHASRA NO. 18/16, BLOCKC, VIKAS VIHAR, CHANDER VIHAR, NILOTHI EXTENSION, NEW DELHI110041.
2. S. AMRIK SINGH S/O LATE GURBACHAN SINGH R/O BE53, HARI NAGAR, NEW DELHI110064.
3. S. MANMOHAN SINGH S/O INDER SINGH SANDHU R/O B10, HARI NAGAR, NEW DELHI110064.
4. SH. ASHWANI KUMAR S/O SH. RAM LAL R/O 87, BLOCK NO. 14, SUBHASH NAGAR, NEW DELHI110027. ...DEFENDANTS 11 It is further stated in the instant application that plaintiff further wants to incorporate a new para as Para No. 9B after the para no. 9 (a) of the plaintiff, which is as under: S. Deep Singh Sethi Vs Smt. Bhajan Kaur CIV DJ No. 10561/16 "9B. That the defendant no. 2 directed the defendant no. 1 to execute ownership/title document with respect to first and third floor with terrace right and common parking of ground floor of property No. 4, after measuring 65 sq. yds., Khasra No. 18/16, BlockC, Vikas Vihar, Chander Vihar, Nilothi Extn., New Delhi41 in favour of defendant no. 3 by way of duly notarized GPA, Agreement to Sell & Purchase, SPA, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter, Deed of Will and Indemnity Bond in pursuance of the said Collaboration Agreement dated 06.09.2011. Subsequently, the defendant no. 3 executed the first floor with common parking at ground floor of the above property in favour of defendant no. 4 against the valid consideration and further executed the first floor with roof right and common parking at ground floor in favour of father of the plaintiff. The defendant no. 4 further executed the ownership/title documents i.e. notarized GPA, Agreement to Sell & Purchase, SPA, Affidavit, Receipt, Possession Letter, Deed of Will and Indemnity Bond, all dated 25.05.2013 with respect to the first floor with common parking at ground floor in favour of plaintiff. In this way, the defendant no. 1 S. Deep Singh Sethi Vs Smt. Bhajan Kaur CIV DJ No. 10561/16 alongwith other defendants is jointly and severally liable to accept the ownership right of the plaintiff with respect to first floor with common parking at ground floor of the above property collaterally relied by the Indemnity Bond executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 3 who subsequently executed Indemnity Bond in favour of defendant no. 4 and defendant no. 4 has also executed Indemnity Bond in favour of the plaintiff."
12 It is further stated in the instant application that plaintiff further wants to amend the prayer paras no. a to e i.e. in para no. a and b, defendant be amended as defendant no. 1, and in para no. c to e, the defendant is amdned as defendants and after amendment, the same be read as under: PRAYER: It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:
a) pass a decree of possession in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1 thereby directing the defendant no. 1 to handover the peaceful vacant S. Deep Singh Sethi Vs Smt. Bhajan Kaur CIV DJ No. 10561/16 possession of suit property Plot No. 4, measuring 65 sq. yds., Khasra No. 18/16, BlockC, Vikas Vihar, Chander Vihar, Nilothi Extn., New Delhi41, with common parking, specifically shown in red folour in the site plan annexed with plaint, to the plaintiff.
b) pass a decree of Rs. 90,000/ in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant no. 1 towards damages/mesne profit @ Rs. 10,000/ per month till February, 2014 and further direct the defendant no. 1 to pay the damages/mesne profit @ Rs. 10,000/ p.m. to the plaintiff till the date of handing over the peaceful vacant possession of the suit property i.e. Plot No. 4, area measuring 65 sq. yds., Khasra No. 18/16, BlockC, Vikas Vihar, Chander Vihar, Nilothi Extn., New Delhi41, to the plaintiff.
c) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants thereby restraining the defendants, their relatives, assignee, representatives, executors etc. from selling, alienating, disposing, part with possession or creating any kind of third party interest and/or from raising any kind of S. Deep Singh Sethi Vs Smt. Bhajan Kaur CIV DJ No. 10561/16 construction/repairing/modification in the property/Plot No. 4, area measuring 65 sq. yds., Khasra No. 18/16, BlockC, Vikas Vihar, Chander Vihar, Nilothi Extn., New Delhi41 with common parking as site plan annexed with the plaint.
d) Award the cost of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
e) pass any other or further order/relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and property in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, in the interest of justice.
13 It is further stated in the instant application that the above mentioned impleadment of proposed defendants no. 2 to 4 and subsequent amendments are necessary and essential for just and proper adjudication of the present case.
14 In the reply filed for proposed defendant no. 3 it is stated that the present application is liable to be dismissed on the ground that it is filed without any basis and stand taken by the plaintiff is on the basis of falsehood and which S. Deep Singh Sethi Vs Smt. Bhajan Kaur CIV DJ No. 10561/16 will be exposed during the course of trial. It is further submitted that the present defendant no. 3 has no relation to the present dispute, which is in fact allegedly between the defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff. Defendant no. 3 has been dragged into the dispute without any basis. It is further stated for proposed defendant no. 3 that he is, now, having no concern with the suit property and plaintiff had already taken the possession of the property as per his own admission from its previous owner i.e. defendant no. 4, who had sold property to plaintiff, so whatever grievances he is having, is with defendant no. 1 only.
15 In the reply filed for proposed defendant no. 4, it is stated that present application of the plaintiff is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed as being baseless and even the application does not disclose cogent reason for impleadment of document. It is further stated the application of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and he is guilty of suppressing the true facts from this Court. It is further stated that plaintiff did not mention any explanation regarding relief sought against the proposed defendant no. 4 and reasons for such belated amendments. It S. Deep Singh Sethi Vs Smt. Bhajan Kaur CIV DJ No. 10561/16 is further stated that application of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as plaintiff has not paid consideration value to proposed defendant no. 4.
It is further stated that plaintiff has no locusstandi to file the present suit or application.
16 Arguments have been heard from Sh. Arvind Kumar Dubey, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and also from Sh. A.K. Jha, Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1, Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Ld. Counsel for proposed defendant no. 3 and from Sh. Jatin Sapra, Ld. Counsel for proposed defendant no. 4 on the present application. None appeared for proposed defendant no. 2 to submit arguments. During arguments, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff/applicant has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "Savitri Devi Vs District Judge, Gorakhpur & Ors.", AIR 1999 SC 976.
I have gone through the record file carefully.
DECISION: 17 Order I Rule 10 CPC provides as below: "(1) Where a suit has been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the S. Deep Singh Sethi Vs Smt. Bhajan Kaur CIV DJ No. 10561/16 name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted through a bona fide mistake and that it is necessary for the determination of the real matter in dispute so to do, order any other person to be substituted or added as plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just.
(2) The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application or either party, add on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.
(3) ...........
(4) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended Where a defendant is added, the plaint shall, unless the Court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant.
(5) Subject to the provisions of Indian Limitation Act, 1877, section 22, the proceedings as against any person added as defendant shall be deemed to S. Deep Singh Sethi Vs Smt. Bhajan Kaur CIV DJ No. 10561/16 have begun only on the service of the summons."
18 Order VI Rule 17 provides as under:
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 the due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
19 In "Savitri Devi Vs District Judge, Gorakhpur & Ors.", AIR 1999 SC 976, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "Order I, rule 10 enables the Court to add any person as party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provision in the Code."
20 On facts as stated by applicant/plaintiff, I am of the considered view S. Deep Singh Sethi Vs Smt. Bhajan Kaur CIV DJ No. 10561/16 that defendants no. 2 to 4 are necessary parties to be incorporated in the case in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. They are not strangers in respect of the suit property. Even if, plaintiff has not claimed any relief against defendants no. 2 to 4, their stand in the case is required to be known for the proper adjudication of the dispute between the plaintiff S. Deep Singh Sethi and defendant Smt. Bhajan Kaur. Amendments, sought in the plaint, are consequential to the incorporation of the defendants no. 2 to 4. Accordingly, proposed amendments in the plaint are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties.
21 In view of the above discussion, present application U/O I Rule 10 and U/O VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC is allowed.
Announced in open court (MAHAVIR SINGHAL) today i.e. 17.08.2016 ADJ/WEST/DELHI/17.08.2016 S. Deep Singh Sethi Vs Smt. Bhajan Kaur CIV DJ No. 10561/16