Nisha Shah vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 2440 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Date of Judgment:16.04.2012

+     CM(M) 154/2012

NISHA SHAH                                                 ..... Petitioner
                               Through    Mr. Pramod Ahuja, Adv.

                      versus

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS                       ..... Respondents
                 Through  None.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 The petitioner is the aggrieved by the order dated 10.10.2011 vide

which two applications filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of

the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code')

seeking an amendment of his plaint had been disallowed.

2 Record shows that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff

seeking a decree of permanent injunction. It was directed against the

Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). This suit had been filed in the

year 1991. The present two applications under Order 6 Rule 17 of the

Code are dated 29.01.2010 and 22.02.2010 respectively.

3 The amendment sought in the first application is to the effect that

one of the residents of the colony namely Mr.V.K. Bahl had obtained

certain information from the office of the Deputy Commissioner under

the RTI Act which was to the effect that the defendant has sold the

public land/aam rasta to different persons claiming himself to be the

owner of the said property whereas this aam rasta/road in fact belongs to

Cantonment Board; amendment had been sought for the aforenoted

purpose. The document annexed along with this application is dated

22.05.2009 which has forwarded certain information to V.K. Bahl under

the RTI Act where reference is made to the acquisition of land which

forms a part of khasra No. 1607.

4 The second application for amendment is dated 22.02.2010. The

amendment sought to be incorporated is contained in para 6 of the

application which states that the plaintiff had purchased the aforenoted

property vide a registered sale deed from Sheela Khandewal wife of

Ramesh Kumar Khandewal on 17.06.1992 for Rs.1,75,000/- which was

three side open and a sanctioned letter to the said effect has also been

given by the MCD; further contention being that Sheela Khandewal had

purchased this property from Nisha Shah. Admittedly documents to the

said effect are not a part of this record.

5 Both the applications had been dismissed by the impugned order

and rightly so. The amendments sought for do not in any manner throw

light upon the controversy in question which in the present case is a suit

simplicitor for permanent injunction. The suit as noted supra was filed in

the year 1991 and the present applications have been filed almost two

decades later for which there is no explanation. The RTI information

annexed along with the first application pertains to V.K.Bahl and is

dated 22.05.2009 as noted supra is related to a portion of khasra No.

1607. It is clear that intentionally the petitioner has not filed the original

plaint before this Court and on a specific query put to him as to how

portion of khasra No. 1607 is related to the present case, he has no

answer. In fact in the list of dates which has been filed along with this

petition, a mention has been made of the suit property as Inder Puri

colony, New Delhi and the disputed aam rasta is shown adjacent to A-

39, Inder Puri; there is no mention of Khasra No. 1607. It is clear that

information obtained by one Mr. V.K. Bahl (party totally unrelated to

the present case) is in no manner connected with the present suit land.

6 The second application seeking amendment is to the effect that

the plaintiff had purchased this property from Sheela Khandewal and is

also totally unrelated to the controversy in question; no document of this

sale transaction has been placed on record (as noted supra); even

otherwise, this amendment if permitted would change the nature of the

case as the original case of the plaintiff is that the suit land belongs to

the Cantonment Board; he is now setting up a claim of ownership of this

suit land from Sheela Khandewal who in turn had purchased it from

Nisha Shah; it is not his case that Delhi Cantonment Board was ever the

owner of this suit property; this amendment is also wholly unrelated to

the present case.

7 The impression gathered by this Court is that the plaintiff is doing

every bit in an attempt to delay the suit proceedings; he is appears to be

sitting on a government land usurped by him and is enjoying the interim

protection granted to him and by one attempt or the other is trying to

delay the progress of the case; he is not allowing it to culminate. Record

further shows that the matter had been fixed for the evidence of the

plaintiff in December, 1993 but till date the evidence of the plaintiff has

not been led on one pretext or the other.

8 Impugned order suffers from no infirmity. The present petition is

clearly an abuse of the process of the Court; it is dismissed with costs of

Rs.10,000/-.

INDERMEET KAUR, J APRIL 16, 2012 A