Harjeet Kaur Oberoi vs Anil Puri & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 3050 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment:08.05.2012

+     CM(M) 737/2011 & CM No. 12044/2011


      HARJEET KAUR OBEROI                          ..... Petitioner
                   Through              Mr. S.K. Bhalla, Adv.

                      versus


      ANIL PURI & ORS                      ..... Respondents
                    Through             Mr. Rajat Aneja, Adv.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 19.04.2011

vide which the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17

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

seeking an amendment in his plaint had been declined. Contention of the

petitioner is that this order suffers from an illegality; contention being

that the amendment application had been filed within a span of less than

one month from the date of original filing of the plaint and no prejudice

would have been suffered by the defendant in case the amendment

would have been allowed; further contention being that the law of

amendment is liberal. To support his submission, reliance has been

placed upon AIR 1978 SC 484 Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. Moji Ram as

also AIR 1983 SC 462 Panchdeo Narain Srivastava Vs. Km. Jyoti Sahay

and another.

2 There is no doubt to the proposition that the law of amendment is

to be liberally construed and if a party or its counsel is insufficient in

setting out its case initially the shortcoming can be removed by

appropriate steps. However in this case, the submission of the petitioner

that the amendment sought for is only because of an improper drafting

in the plaint which is because of the shortcoming of the Advocate is

without any merit.

3 Record shows that the original suit was a suit for permanent and

mandatory injunction wherein the plaintiff (Harjeet Kaur) had stated that

she is living in the disputed premises as a tenant i.e. 16/61-62, street No.

2, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi at a monthly rental of Rs.800/-

which was thereafter enhanced to Rs.3,200/- per month and the rent is

being paid to Ranjeet Singh. Written statement was filed. In this written

statement contention was that the rate of rent is Rs.3,520/- per month

which has been enhanced from Rs.3,200/- per month; the plaintiff is not

entitled to any relief.

4 After the filing of the written statement, the aforenoted

application seeking amendment of the plaint was filed on 01.05.2010;

contentions now raised in the amendment application were to the effect

that there were in fact four co-tenancies created by the plaintiff in favour

of the tenants which were for four separate portions and rate of rent of

each of the tenanted portion was Rs.800/-; that is why Rs.3,2000/- was

being paid. Contention being that on the eastern portion, Mr. M. Singh

was living; Harjeet Kaur and Suresh Kumar were occupying the western

side and so also the other portions. However, contention being that no

separate rent receipts for four separate tenancies were given and a

consolidated receipt of Rs.3,200/- was being issued.

5 In this background, the prayer made by the petitioner had been

considered and rejected and in view of this Court rightly so.

6 There is no doubt that the law of amendment has to be liberally

construed and if no prejudice is suffered by the opposite party,

amendment by and large should be permitted. At the same time, the

Court must bear in mind that the nature of the suit must remain the same

and the plaintiff should not be permitted to take away a right which has

accrued to the defendant. The plaintiff in the instant case has admitted

that she is a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.3,200/-; the case of the

defendant is that the statutory rent has been enhanced from Rs.3,200/- to

Rs.3,520/- taking it outside the purview of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It

was for this reason that the aforenoted application was filed alleging

four separate and different tenancies of Rs.800/- each.

7 In this background, the impugned order declining the amendment

suffers from no infirmity. It does not call for any interference. Petition is

without any merit. Dismissed.

                                               INDERMEET KAUR, J
MAY       08, 2012
A