Delhi District Court
Chanchal Singh vs . Kashyap Rajput Central Sabha on 16 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRANJAL ANEJA
CIVIL JUDGE01, EAST, KKD COURTS, DELHI
Suit. No 23/12
In the matter of:
Chanchal Singh Vs. Kashyap Rajput Central Sabha
(Registered)
Order
1.This common order shall dispose of the application u/o 6 rule 17 dated 25/02/12 filed on 06/03/12 and application u/o 1 rule 10 CPC dated 04/02/12 filed on 14/02/12, both filed on behalf of the plaintiffs.
2. In the application u/o 6 rule 17 r/w section 151 CPC it is stated that the property in question belongs to the society i.e. defendant no. 1 and Sh. Balwant Singh Parwana is trying to sell the suit property in the guise of compromise which the without the consent and knowledge of its member and after filing the present suit the plaintiff came to know that the proposed defendants are also trying to sell the suit property in part and therefore an Suit No.23/12 Page No. 1/8 application u/o 1 rule 10 CPC has already been moved and this amendment application is further being moved for necessary amendments in the suit. In para 8,11 and 12 of the original plaint, the plaintiff wants to make necessary changes consequential to the impledment of other persons as defendants. The plaintiffs further seek to change the complete para no. 13 and 14 of the original plaint. The plaintiffs also seek to change the cause of action para 16 of the original plaint.
3. In the application u/o 1 rule 10 the plaintiffs state that some more persons namely Smt. Dalbir Kaur, Harvinder Singh, Smt. Memuma Khatoon etc. were also the parties to the suit and all in conspiracy with Sh. Balwant Singh Parwana wants to sell the property of the defendant society and they are actively searching the buyer and since all the above said persons are in conspiracy with each other, hence all are necessary party in the present suit and therefore plaintiffs want to implead them as defendants.
4. Separate replies have been filed by the defendant to the above said two applications. In both the replies the defendant has Suit No.23/12 Page No. 2/8 vehemently contented that the plaintiffs have consealed the material facts from this Hon'ble Court which goes to the root of the case. The plaintiffs have suppressed the material fact that a compromise decree was passed by Sh. Brijesh Garg, Ld. ADJ Tis Hazari on 14/12/11 vide compromise recorded in mediation center on 14/11/11. Whereby the defendant and the other persons, as sought to be impleaded by the plaintiffs in their application u/o 1 rule 10 CPC, were allowed to partition the property in suit whereby to sell the whole of the property by joint effort and to distribute amoung themselves the sale proceeds as per the terms of the decree passed and if the property could not be sold then partition the same and owned the shares as per the decree and thus there is no question of any conspiracy as falsely alleged by the plaintiff. The defendant has been acting as per the terms of the decree passed by the Ld. ADJ Tis Hazari. The defendant has further alleged that the plaintiffs were fully aware of all the facts of passing of a compromise decree by Sh. Brijesh Garg Ld. ADJ on the basis of mediation agreement and the plaintiffs have moved the present applications for amendment and impleadment with malafide motives concealing all the facts Suit No.23/12 Page No. 3/8 from this Hon'ble Court. That the compromise before the mediation center was also filed in the Court of Ms. Archana Singh Ld. ADJ Tis Hazari in suit no. 132 of 2002/ 134 of 2008 in suit titled as Kashyap Rajput Central Sabha Vs. Dalbir Kaur and Another. Thus the present applications must be dismissed.
5. I have heard both the counsels and perused the records carefully.
6. In the original plaint it is pleaded by the plaintiffs that property bearing no. 25/A, Silver Park, Chander Nagar, Delhi is in possession of the defendant and the defendant society is entitled for running a Barat Ghar. It is further alleged in the plaint that the General Secretary of the defendant Sabha Sh. Balwant Singh Parwana started misusing the funds of the society and did not declare election as per the provisions of the constitution of the society. As alleged in the original plaint, the plaintiffs came to know on 05/01/12 from reliable sources that the said General Secretary namely Balwant Singh Parwana had compromised the matter with other persons(defendants in that suit) and according Suit No.23/12 Page No. 4/8 to the alleged compromise Sh. Balwant Singh Parwana is goint to sell the property of the society for which he has not taken any permission from the general body to sell the premises i.e. Barat Ghar. Thus, the plaintiffs have alleged that they gained knowledge about the said compromise through reliable sources. But it is astonishing to note that in the application u/o 6 rule 17 the plaintiffs wants to change para 13 of the original plaint and wants to substitute the following paragraph: "That the defendants are in collusion with each other and the defendants without having any authority or power are trying to sell the suit property on the basis of the compromise decree obtained from the Court of Sh. Brijesh Garg, ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi by playing fraud. The plaintiffs also moved one application before the said Court, but the Court refused to entertain the application, as the matter had already been decided by the said Court."
The plaintiff thus clearly state that they had moved one application before the said Court i.e. the Court of Sh. Brijesh Garg, Ld. ADJ Tis Hazari, but the Court refused to entertain the application, as matter had already been decided by the said Suit No.23/12 Page No. 5/8 Court. It is clearly shows that the plaintiffs had complete knowledge of the proceedings including the compromise deed entered into between the parties on 14/11/11 and the compromise decree passed on that basis by the Ld. ADJ on 14/12/11. The plaintiffs have conspicuously not disclosed the full facts of the said suit in the original plaint and have only stated that they have come to know from reliable sources about the compromise. It is upon the averments made by the defendant regarding the proceedings of the said suit before the Ld. ADJ Sh. Brijesh Kumar, that the plaintiffs by way of present amendment want to incorporate those averments in the original plaint which were hidden and not disclosed fully being vital facts. Further, it is noted that the plaintiffs have filed the copy of constitution of the defendant Sabha but the said document which was filed on 21/01/12, prior to moving the two applications in question, is a photocopy of a certified copy from the copying agency and it bears the issuing date as 18/01/12 which clearly shows that the same has been obtained from the records of the said case pending before Sh. Brijesh Garg, Ld. ADJ. Filing of the said photocopy thus shows that the plaintiffs had complete Suit No.23/12 Page No. 6/8 knowledge of the said case. The defendant has filed copy of the proceedings of the general body meeting held on 10/08/11 which the participation of plaintiff no. 1 at serial no. 21 of the persons who attended the said meeting. The plaintiffs cannot be allowed to amend the suit or make additions on the basis of averments made by the defendant in the WS which were already in the knowledge of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs ought to have filed replication to the WS and amendment of pleading cannot be resorted to.
7. The plaintiffs have sought for impleadment of several persons as defendant stating that they are all in conspiracy with Sh. Balwant Singh Parwana and wants to sell the property of the defendant society. But the plaintiffs have not made clear what conspiracy has been hatched by the said persons and therefore they cannot be added merely by naming them. Moreover it is seen that the persons who are sought to be impleaded and are named in para 4 of the application u/o 1 rule 10 are parties to the suit no. 186/11 in the Court of Sh. Brijesh Garg, Ld. ADJ Tis Hazari Delhi of which the certified copy has been filed by the Suit No.23/12 Page No. 7/8 defendant. The said suit was settled in mediation center vide mediation agreement dated 14/11/11 and on the basis of it a compromise decree was drawn by the Ld. Court on 14/12/11. Thus, the plaintiffs have alleged the said persons to be in conspiracy with the defendant society whereas the said persons were party to the above mentioned suit and have mutually settled the dispute in respect of the suit property. There cannot be any conspiracy seen on the part of the said persons as whatever acts being done by them in respect of the suit property are in accordance with the compromise arrived at and the decree passed in the above mentioned suit and the parties are acting according to it. Thus, the said person cannot be impleaded as defendants to the present suit on account of the above discussed reasons.
8. Thus, in light of the above discussion the two applications i.e u/o 6 rule 17 and u/o 1 rule 10 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiffs being devoid of merits and are accordingly dismissed.
Announced in the open court on (PRANJAL ANEJA)
16 day of May, 2012.
th
CJ01, East
KKD Courts/ Delhi.
Suit No.23/12 Page No. 8/8