Delhi High Court
Mr. (Dr.) K.D. Bhalla & Anr. vs Mr. S.P. Marwah & Anr. on 14 August, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) No. 123/2014 & CM Nos. 2159/14(stay),
2160/14(exemption) & 3968/14 (stay)
% 14th August , 2014
MR. (DR.) K.D. BHALLA & ANR. ......Petitioners
Through: None.
VERSUS
MR. S.P. MARWAH & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated
21.12.2013 by which an application filed by the defendants/petitioners under
Order 14 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for framing of
additional issues has been dismissed.
2. The following are the existing issues in the suit:-
"1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of
mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the
wall constructed by them in Khasra No. 844/2 and also to
CM(M) 123/2014 Page 1 of 3
provide a passage of entrance to the plaintiffs from the land of
the defendants as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of
permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from
obstructing the passage or entrance of the plaintiffs to
approach their kitchen garden house?OPP
3. Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present
suit? OPD
4. Whether the suit is barred by the provisions of Delhi
Land Reforms Act, Transfer of Property Act and Easements
Act? OPD
5. Relief."
3. In addition to the aforesaid issues now the
petitioners/defendants seek to frame the following additional issues:-
"i. Whether the plaintiffs and the defendants purchased the land
from the common owner? OPP & D
ii. Whether the defendants had agreed to have a common passage
on their land?OPP
iii. Whether the plots purchased by the plaintiffs and the
defendants stood partitioned on the date of purchase? OPD
iv. Whether this Court is competent Court to try and entertain the
suit filed by the Plaintiffs? OPP & D."
4. Counsel for the respondents agrees that the issue with respect to
partition does not arise and the issue with respect to agreement to have a
common passage was not pressed by the petitioners/defendants, however,
the counsel for the respondent agrees and accordingly this petition can be
CM(M) 123/2014 Page 2 of 3
disposed of and is disposed of by treating the additional issues which are
sought to be framed as already covered under the existing issues. In my
opinion, this is a very fair stand of the respondent because once the proposed
issues are deemed to be covered under the existing issues, evidence on all
aspects can be led by both the parties to the suit as per the pleadings.
5. In view of the above, this petition is allowed in terms of the
aforesaid observations and both the parties can lead evidence if they so want
with respect to the issues which are sought to be got additionally framed but
which are now deemed to be covered under the existing issues.
6. Petition is disposed of accordingly, leaving the parties to bear
their own costs.
AUGUST 14, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
