Delhi High Court
Shri Hans Raj & Anr vs Shri Ajit Singh & Ors on 30 October, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) No. 432/2014
% 30th October , 2014
SHRI HANS RAJ & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: None.
versus
SHRI AJIT SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. No one appears for the petitioners although it is 12.15 PM. I
have gone through the record and therefore am proceeding to dispose of the
petition. I may note that this matter was listed on two earlier dates when at
the request of the petitioner the matter was adjourned and which dates are
29.4.2014 and 15.5.2014.
2. By the impugned order dated 4.4.2013 the application of the
respondent/plaintiff filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) whereby the respondent/plaintiff wanted to claim
CMM 432/2014 Page 1 of 3
enhanced damages has been allowed. The relevant observations of the trial
court while for allowing of the application read as under:-
"8. Qua 1st objection: that the time limit for filing this application was 14 days
from the date of the order of Hon'ble High Court and that the amendment
is barred by limitation being filed approximately after one year from the
date of the order. Amendment deleting the relief of possession already
stands allowed by the order dated 28.10.08 passed by Hon'ble High Court.
After this order plaintiff was not required to move any amendment
application afresh in view of the fact the same stood allowed by the above
mentioned order. Plaintiff was only liable to file an amendment plaint in
view of the said order. In view of the same, the objection raised by Ld.
Counsel for defendant no.2 is devoid of merit.
9. Qua 2nd Objection: Vide order dated 28.10.08, Hon'ble High
Court plaintiff was directed to confine his relief qua mesne profits only.
There is no observation or restriction imposed by the order of Hon'ble
High Court as to the quantum of mesne profit/damages/misuse charges
which the plaintiff is entitled to claim at that stage or at any subsequent
stage.
10. Qua 3rd Objection: the defendant no.2 himself was impleaded
when the suit was at the stage of defendant's evidence on his application
Under order 1 Rule 10 CPC as allowed by the order of Hon'ble High
Court dated 21.10.08. After, his impleadment, the suit qua defendant no.2
is relegated back to the stage of the pleadings. In view of the same, the
objection raised by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 is without any merit.
xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
14. Amendments have to be allowed to avoid uncalled multiplicity of
litigation; they should be viewed with a liberal approach and delay may
not be a ground for refusing a prayer for amendment, if the merits of the
CMM 432/2014 Page 2 of 3
case so demands. As long as no prejudice is suffered by the non-
applicant, the Court should be liberal in allowing the amendment.
15. It is settled proposition of law that an amendment should generally
be allowed, unless it is shown that permitting the amendment would be
unjust and would result in prejudice to the opposite party which cannot be
compensated by cost or would deprive him of a right which was accrued
to him with the lapse of time. Errors of mistakes, if not fraudulent, should
not be made a ground for rejecting the application for amendment of plaint
or written statement. If there is no undue delay, no inconsistent cause of
action is introduced and no vested interested or accrued legal right is
affected and the application for amendment is not mala fide or will not
prejudice the opposite party, the amendment should ordinarily be
allowed."
3. I do not find any error in the impugned order because by
claiming a particular amount of higher damages, and which will have to be
proved during the trial in accordance with law, any grave prejudice is caused
to the petitioner/defendant. Trial court has rightly concluded that in facts of
case such as the present amendment application is to be liberally considered.
No grounds are made out for exercise of extraordinary and discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for interfering
with the impugned order.
4. Dismissed.
OCTOBER 30, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
