Delhi High Court
Nisha Shah vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Ors on 16 April, 2012
Author: Indermeet Kaur
Bench: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment:16.04.2012
+ CM(M) 154/2012
NISHA SHAH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Pramod Ahuja, Adv.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 The petitioner is the aggrieved by the order dated 10.10.2011 vide which two applications filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') seeking an amendment of his plaint had been disallowed. 2 Record shows that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction. It was directed against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). This suit had been filed in the year 1991. The present two applications under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code are dated 29.01.2010 and 22.02.2010 respectively. CM (M) No. 154/2012 Page 1 of 5 3 The amendment sought in the first application is to the effect that one of the residents of the colony namely Mr.V.K. Bahl had obtained certain information from the office of the Deputy Commissioner under the RTI Act which was to the effect that the defendant has sold the public land/aam rasta to different persons claiming himself to be the owner of the said property whereas this aam rasta/road in fact belongs to Cantonment Board; amendment had been sought for the aforenoted purpose. The document annexed along with this application is dated 22.05.2009 which has forwarded certain information to V.K. Bahl under the RTI Act where reference is made to the acquisition of land which forms a part of khasra No. 1607.
4 The second application for amendment is dated 22.02.2010. The amendment sought to be incorporated is contained in para 6 of the application which states that the plaintiff had purchased the aforenoted property vide a registered sale deed from Sheela Khandewal wife of Ramesh Kumar Khandewal on 17.06.1992 for Rs.1,75,000/- which was three side open and a sanctioned letter to the said effect has also been given by the MCD; further contention being that Sheela Khandewal had purchased this property from Nisha Shah. Admittedly documents to the CM (M) No. 154/2012 Page 2 of 5 said effect are not a part of this record.
5 Both the applications had been dismissed by the impugned order and rightly so. The amendments sought for do not in any manner throw light upon the controversy in question which in the present case is a suit simplicitor for permanent injunction. The suit as noted supra was filed in the year 1991 and the present applications have been filed almost two decades later for which there is no explanation. The RTI information annexed along with the first application pertains to V.K.Bahl and is dated 22.05.2009 as noted supra is related to a portion of khasra No. 1607. It is clear that intentionally the petitioner has not filed the original plaint before this Court and on a specific query put to him as to how portion of khasra No. 1607 is related to the present case, he has no answer. In fact in the list of dates which has been filed along with this petition, a mention has been made of the suit property as Inder Puri colony, New Delhi and the disputed aam rasta is shown adjacent to A- 39, Inder Puri; there is no mention of Khasra No. 1607. It is clear that information obtained by one Mr. V.K. Bahl (party totally unrelated to the present case) is in no manner connected with the present suit land. 6 The second application seeking amendment is to the effect that CM (M) No. 154/2012 Page 3 of 5 the plaintiff had purchased this property from Sheela Khandewal and is also totally unrelated to the controversy in question; no document of this sale transaction has been placed on record (as noted supra); even otherwise, this amendment if permitted would change the nature of the case as the original case of the plaintiff is that the suit land belongs to the Cantonment Board; he is now setting up a claim of ownership of this suit land from Sheela Khandewal who in turn had purchased it from Nisha Shah; it is not his case that Delhi Cantonment Board was ever the owner of this suit property; this amendment is also wholly unrelated to the present case.
7 The impression gathered by this Court is that the plaintiff is doing every bit in an attempt to delay the suit proceedings; he is appears to be sitting on a government land usurped by him and is enjoying the interim protection granted to him and by one attempt or the other is trying to delay the progress of the case; he is not allowing it to culminate. Record further shows that the matter had been fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff in December, 1993 but till date the evidence of the plaintiff has not been led on one pretext or the other.
8 Impugned order suffers from no infirmity. The present petition is CM (M) No. 154/2012 Page 4 of 5 clearly an abuse of the process of the Court; it is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
INDERMEET KAUR, J APRIL 16, 2012 A CM (M) No. 154/2012 Page 5 of 5