Delhi High Court
Surender Singh vs Mohd. Salim on 7 September, 2012
Author: M.L. Mehta
Bench: M.L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.R.P. 109/2012 & CM 15705-15706/2012
Date of Decision: 07.09.2012
SURENDER SINGH ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shailender Dahiya, Adv.
Versus
MOHD. SALIM ......Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition assails order dated 21.05.2012 of Civil Judge-05, North whereby application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC of the respondent, who was plaintiff in the suit, was allowed.
2. The respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction against Ranbiri Devi in respect of shop No. 8, Lalji Mandir Market, Munirka, New Delhi. The defendant Ranbiri Devi had filed written statement to the plaint. One of the pleas which she had taken was that LRs of original owner Ram Bhajan had sold the suit premises to Surender Singh by way of documents such as GPA etc. The respondent filed application seeking impleadment of Surender Singh in place of Ranbiri Devi since Ranbiri Devi stated to C.R.P. 109/2012 Page 1 of 3 be no longer left with any interest in the suit shop after the same had been transferred to Surender Singh. The respondent/ plaintiff also alleged that now the threats were being extended by Surender Singh. Vide the impugned order the application was allowed and Surender Singh was impleaded as defendant in place of Ranbiri Devi and, consequently amendments were also allowed subject to payment of some costs. The petitioner challenged the impugned order stating him to be neither necessary nor proper party and, further that the sought amendments were highly belated and, further that in any case, the allegation against him gave rise to new cause of action to the respondent/ plaintiff and could not be added in the suit against Ranbiri Devi.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. It is seen that in the written statement that was filed by defendant Ranbiri Devi, she had stated that the suit premises had been transferred to Surender Singh, who was now the present owner and landlord of the plaintiff. It is also seen that the plaintiff had also complained to the police against Surender Singh when he allegedly extended threats to him on 12.05.2008 and 25.05.2008. On being asked, it was not denied by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has acquired interest in the suit premises, having derived the same from the LRs of original owner Ram Bhajan.
4. Without going into the aspect as to whether the petitioner Surender Singh acquired valid title in the suit premises by virtue of C.R.P. 109/2012 Page 2 of 3 aforesaid documents or as to whether the doctrine of lis pendence was applicable or not, the fact remains that it was undisputed that the respondent/plaintiff had set up a cause of action against him, which was nothing but, in continuance of the cause of action against Ranbiri Devi. It is also noticed that there was also avements in the plaint that besides Ranbiri Devi one person by the name of Surender accompanied with her also threatened him to vacate the premises. Thus, it is not that a new cause of action was sought to be set up, there were already allegations against the petitioner Surender Singh of having extended threats to him to vacate the suit premises. I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.
5. In view of all this, the petitioner seems to be necessary and proper party for the just decision of the case. I do not see any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The petition merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 07, 2012 awanish C.R.P. 109/2012 Page 3 of 3