Ms.Meera vs Ram Dev Sharma & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4393 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Date of Judgment: 08.09.2011

+       CM (M) No. 411/2010 and CM Nos. 5657-5658/2010

MS. MEERA                            ...........Appellant
                           Through: Mr. Anil Dwedi, Advocate.

                      Versus

Ram Dev Sharma & Anr.                 ..........Respondents
                           Through: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Advocate
                                      for R-1.
                                      Mr. Shailesh K. Kapoor, Advocate
                                      for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?             Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                         Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. The order impugned before this court is the order dated

15.02.2010 vide which the application filed by the plaintiff under Order

6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as

„the Code‟) seeking amendment of his plaint had been dismissed. A

perusal of the record shows that the present suit is a suit for declaration

and injunction; the prayer is that the GPA and the documents prepared

by the defendant No. 1 be declared null and void; by way of this

amendment an additional prayer has been sought to be added in the

original plaint; the said prayer reads as under:-

"Direct the defendant No. 1 to remove his locks from all the three shops of the plaintiff and be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property"

2. A perusal of the plaint shows that nowhere in the entire body of

the petition there has been description of aforenoted three shops by the

plaintiff; even if the prayer is allowed, the decree would be ineffectual

as the details of the aforenoted three shops is nowhere given in the

entire body of the plaint.

3. One of the tests for allowing an amendment application is that the

amendment be permitted if it would resolve the controversy and dispute

between the parties; in the present case by allowing such amendment,

the controversy would in fact be enlarged as the plaintiff himself is not

aware of which shop‟s he wants the seal to be removed; it would be

setting a new case which has nowhere been pleaded. The impugned

order dismissing the application of the plaintiff suffers from no infirmity;

petition is dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

SEPTEMBER 08, 2011 rb