Delhi District Court
Sh. Haripal Sharma vs ) Sh. Rahul Gagerna on 17 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURVINDER PAL SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE01 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
C.S. No. 260/2013
Unique I. D. No. 02401C0512202013
Sh. Haripal Sharma,
S/o Sh. C.L. Sharma,
Proprietor of M/s Apex Company,
Building No. 1026, IInd Floor,
Gagerna House, Gali Teliyan,
Tilak Bazar, Delhi110006.
Residential Address :
House No. E36, Street No5,
Sadatpur Extension, Delhi110094.
......Plaintiff
Versus
1) Sh. Rahul Gagerna.
2) Sh. Rajul Gagerna.
3) Sh. Anjul Gagerna.
All s/o Late Sh. Suresh Chand Gagerna,
R/o 14, Bharti Artist Colony,
Vikas Marg, Delhi110092.
CS260/2013
Haripal Sharma Vs. Rahul Gagerna & Ors. Page 1 of 7
4) Sh. Sandeep Kumar,
S/o Sh. Satyapal.
5) Smt. Anupma Kumar,
W/o Sh. Sandeep Kumar
Both R/o House No. C3/164,
Yamuna Vihar, Delhi110053.
.......Defendants
O R D E R
1. By this order I shall dispose of an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) of plaintiff dated 18.03.2015, seeking amendment of pleadings.
2. I have heard Sh. Dheeraj Singh, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, Sh. S.C. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for defendants and perused the file including the application under consideration, its reply and material on record.
3. The application under consideration at the outset finds mention the reason for moving the application since the "पगडी" is CS260/2013 Haripal Sharma Vs. Rahul Gagerna & Ors. Page 2 of 7 opposed as a public policy in the Section 5 (1), (2), (9) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, whereas in the original plaint the "पगडी" has been mentioned, so applicant/plaintiff has sought to amend his pleadings. Though, in the application under consideration the applicant/plaintiff seeks to delete para1 of the plaint but in fact in the proposed amended plaint filed alongwith application under consideration the applicant/plaintiff has deleted para2 of the earlier amended plaint filed on 16.07.2014. Said para sought to be deleted reads as under : "2. That the suit property was taken on Pagri on account of which, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/ to the father of defendants No. 1, 2 & 3 at the time of execution of the said Rent Agreement dated 02062005. However, the Pagri amount is not mentioned in the said Rent Agreement. But the Pagri amount was paid by the plaintiff to the father of defendant's No. 1, 2 & 3 as there was/is no shop available in the market place wherein the suit property is situated without the payment of Pagri. It was assured by the father of the defendant No. 1, 2 & 3 at the time of execution of the said rent agreement that plaintiff shall have an option either to purchase the suit property in a passage of time when the Pagri amount of Rs. 1,20,000/ can be adjusted in the consideration amount thereof or if it is not considered appropriate by the plaintiff, the same CS260/2013 Haripal Sharma Vs. Rahul Gagerna & Ors. Page 3 of 7 shall be refunded to the plaintiff on the date of handing over vacant physical possession of the suit property by the plaintiff to the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3."
4. Second sought amendment is deletion of last sentence of para10. Following is the last sentence of para10 : "The suit property is still under possession of the plaintiff."
5. Third sought amendment in the application under consideration is deletion of following words from para11 : "so that the suit property may be let out to any other person on higher amount of Pagri"
6. Answering defendants through Counsel opposed the application tooth and nail submitting the amendment sought will change the facts of the suit, the application is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed for want of reasonable or sufficient ground for amendment since the application is frivolous.
CS260/2013 Haripal Sharma Vs. Rahul Gagerna & Ors. Page 4 of 7
7. This is a suit filed by plaintiff for claiming damages of Rs. 6,86,971/ with interest against defendants as well as mandatory injunction, seeking direction to defendants to issue NOC to plaintiff for getting electricity connection in the suit property on the premise that after execution of rent agreement by father of defendants in favour of plaintiff, the father of defendants did not issue NOC for getting electricity connection by plaintiff, consequently plaintiff could not open his office in the suit property and plaintiff suffered heavy loss besides which defendants failed to comply with their other obligations of the contract by failing of arranging cleanliness of the toilet, locking the toilet and there being water logging on the second floor of the building due to which water entered in the suit property some times for which defendants were grossly negligent by not taking remedial steps wanting to dispossess the plaintiff from suit property to let out the suit property on higher amount of पगडी to some other persons. The suit of the plaintiff also rests upon the premise that the suit shop was taken on lease by plaintiff on पगडी (premium) of Rs. 1,20,000/ and rent agreement was executed. It is also the case of plaintiff that in the said rent agreement there was no CS260/2013 Haripal Sharma Vs. Rahul Gagerna & Ors. Page 5 of 7 mention of said पगडी amount but it was assured by father of defendant at the time of execution of said agreement that plaintiff shall have an option either to purchase the suit property in a passage of time when the पगडी amount of Rs. 1,20,000/ shall be adjusted in consideration thereof or if it is not considered appropriately by plaintiff, same shall be refunded to plaintiff on the date of handing over vacant physical possession of suit property by plaintiff to defendants/landlords.
8. Entire tone and tenor of the claim for damages and mandatory injunction has been built up on the premise of obtaining of lease of suit shop by plaintiff on पगडी (premium) and malafide intention of defendants to evict plaintiff to let out the suit property on higher amount of पगडी to others after getting it vacated from plaintiff or dispossessing the plaintiff therefrom.
9. Even, earlier application under Order I Rule 10 CPC and under Order VI Rule 17 CPC had been moved by plaintiff on 16.07.2014, which were allowed on 10.09.2014 by my Ld. Predecessor since no objections were raised on behalf of defendants of the proposed CS260/2013 Haripal Sharma Vs. Rahul Gagerna & Ors. Page 6 of 7 defendants. Consequent thereto defendants no. 4 and 5 were added as defendants being subsequent purchasers of the suit property.
10. By the proposed amendment, elicited herein before, not only the applicant/plaintiff seeks to change the facts but also nature of the suit, seeking deletion of put forth elicited facts in the averments in the plaint and therein is also his sought retraction of averment of being in possession of the suit property. If permitted, sought amendment in plaint would seriously prejudice the defence of defendants and the rights accrued to the defendants. Application being not maintainable and devoid of merits, is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2000/. Announced in open Court (GURVINDER PAL SINGH) th on 17 Day of October, 2015. Addl. Distt. Judge01 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(AD) CS260/2013 Haripal Sharma Vs. Rahul Gagerna & Ors. Page 7 of 7