Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Vide This Order vs Unknown on 4 May, 2016

     In the Court of Shri V.K. Gautam : Additional Senior Civil Judge of
                Central District at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi

CS No. 87/2012

In the matter of:
Surender Kumar Kaushik
                                                                         ......Plaintif
                                   VERSUS


Pradeep Verma & Ors.
                                                                   ........Defendants

                                      ORDER

1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint.

2. In brief, the plaintiff has stated in the application that Municipal Corporation of Delhi is non entity as on date after its trifurcation and property in dispute fall within the jurisdiction of North Delhi Municipal Corporation. Accordingly, name of the defendant no. 3 has to be amended from "Municipal Corporation of Delhi" to "North Delhi Municipal Corporation". It is further stated in the application that after filing of the present suit, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that by taking advantage of regularization policy of the defendant no.3/MCD, the defendants no. 1 and 2 have applied for regularization of unauthorized construction as an action of demolition was initiated by the North DMC against the unauthorized construction raised by them. It is further stated that the defendants no. 1 & 2 have preferred two appeals before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD against the order passed by the North DMC out of which one appeal has already been withdrawn while the other appeal is pending adjudication.

3. It is further averred in the application that the plaintiff filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC before the ld. Appellate Tribunal, MCD for being impleaded as necessary party which was disposed of with certain observations. It is further stated that these subsequent events i.e. filing of regularization application by defendants no. 1 & 2, order passed by the MCD and pendency of the appeal before Ld. Appellate Tribunal, MCD only came to the knowledge of the plaintiff after filing of the suit and it is necessary for the plaintiff to bring on record those subsequent events by way of amendments in the plaint. Hence, the present application.

4. No separate reply to the application under disposal has been filed on behalf of the defendants no. 1 & 2 despite opportunity.

5. The defendant no. 3/MCD has filed its reply to the said application wherein it is stated that amendment sought in the plaint is neither necessary nor proper and if the same are allowed, it will change the nature of the suit. It is further stated that during inspection of the suit property bearing no. 2130, Masjid Khazoor, Kinari Bazar, Delhi it was noticed that the suit property consists of ground floor to the third floor. It is further stated that a sanction building plan vide file no.36/BP/CZ/2011 dated 15.7.2011 was sanctioned on 07.03.2012 for raising construction from stilt floor to third floor. It is further stated that the owner/occupier of the suit property has violated the conditions of the Delhi Building Bye Laws as well as sanction building plan and the defendant no. 3 is contemplating the action as per law. It is prayed that the application may be dismissed with cost.

6. Submissions have been heard. Record has been perused.

7. Perusal of Order VI Rule 17 CPC reveals that Court may 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 CS No. 87/12 Surender Kumar Kaushik v. Pradeep Verma & Ors. Page 2 of 3 as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. In the present case, the plaintiff has filed a suit alleging illegal and unauthorized construction by the defendants no.1 and 2 in the suit property. The plaintiff by way of proposed amendments wants to incorporate the subsequent events which have been developed during the pendency of the present case. The suit is at the initial stage and the proposed amendments are of subsequent in nature and are necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties with regard to illegal construction.

8. Considering the above discussions, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is allowed.

Announced in the Open Court on 04.05.2016 (V.K. Gautam) Additional Senior Civil Judge Central District: Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi CS No. 87/12 Surender Kumar Kaushik v. Pradeep Verma & Ors. Page 3 of 3