Delhi High Court
Ms. Sona Rani & Ors. vs Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari on 1 February, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.M. (Main) No.902 of 2009 & C.M. Appl. No.12191 of 2009
% 01.02.2010
MS. SONA RANI & ORS. ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani & Ms. Ekta
Kalraa Sikri, Advocates.
Versus
RAM RATTAN SINGH NAMDHARI ......Respondent
Through: Mr. R.S. Sahni, Advocate.
Date of Reserve: 19th January, 2010
Date of Order: 1st February, 2010
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 24th July, 2009 passed
by the Civil Judge dismissing an application of the petitioner (defendant before the trial
court) under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.
2. The defendant made an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC in a suit filed by
the plaintiff for injunction (which was at the stage of final arguments and was pending for
the last 35 years) on the ground that the defendant during pendency of the suit had come
to know subsequently that the plaintiff was not the owner of the adjoining plot and the
structure on the plot of the plaintiff was demolished by the local authorities on the ground
that it was an encroachment on the public land. The petitioner/defendant wanted to
amend the written statement to bring this fact on record.
3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff against the petitioner/defendant seeking a
mandatory injunction against the defendant that defendant should remove doors, windows
and ventilators opening towards the plaintiff's property along wall A-A. The plaintiff
also wanted mandatory injunction that the defendant should demolish the platform made
on the pavement shown on the site plan as area X B C & D and should restore the area to
original shape.
4. In the written statement, the defendant had taken the stand that on the southern
side, i.e., the side on which alleged doors, windows, etc., were opening, there was a
passage leading to the main road through a gate and it was not a plot of land of the
plaintiff. The doors, windows and ventilators of the defendant were opening towards the
passage as per plan sanctioned by municipal committee in the year 1954. Similarly, about
chabutra, it was stated that the construction existed since long and no unauthorized
construction had been made on the public land by the defendant.
5. It is evident from the pleadings that the defendant had already taken a stand that
there was a gali between the property of the plaintiff and defendant and all windows,
doors and ventilators of the defendant opened in the gali and not in the land of the
plaintiff. Whether the plaintiff's property was an encroachment on Government land or
not, was never an issue raised by the defendant nor is an issue relevant for the purpose of
deciding the lis between the parties.
6. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the trial court wrongly dismissed the
application for amendment on the ground of delays. He submitted that the delay in
making amendment application could not be a ground for dismissal.
7. The trial court has not only observed that the application was filed after 35 years
of filing of suit, but has also come to conclusion that the amendments sought were not
relevant for the purpose of deciding the case before the trial court.
8. I find that the trial court rightly came to the conclusion. There is no infirmity in
the order of the trial court. The petition has no force and is hereby dismissed with cost of
Rs.10,000/- to be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Aid Services Committee. The
cost, if not paid, shall be recovered by the trial court from the petitioner.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
FEBRUARY 01, 2010
'AA'
