Shri Jitender Kumar vs Amrit Pal Aggarwal & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 4102 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          CM(M) No.179/2014

%                                                   2nd September, 2014

SHRI JITENDER KUMAR                                           ......Petitioner
                  Through:               None.



                           VERSUS

AMRIT PAL AGGARWAL & ORS.                                ...... Respondents

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

C.M. No.3111/2014 (exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

+ C.M.(M) No.179/2014 and C.M. No.3110/2014 (stay)

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

impugns the orders of the trial court dated 4.5.2013 and 13.11.2013. The trial

court by the order dated 4.5.2013 has allowed the application for amendment

under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by

the respondents/plaintiffs. The amendment application was filed in the suit for

possession and mesne profits filed by the respondents/plaintiffs.

3. A reading of the impugned orders shows that the amendment

application was allowed to challenge as forged/fabricated documents which

were relied upon by the petitioner/defendant no.1 in the written statement filed

in the year 2007. Since the knowledge of the documents which were questioned

by the respondents/plaintiffs by seeking amendment to the plaint were only

filed/relied upon for the first time in the year 2007, hence the amendment

application since was filed in the year 2009 i.e within three years of the date of

knowledge, has been allowed.

4. It is trite that by allowing of an application, merits of the matter

are not decided and only a case is allowed to be set up. Once the amendment as

prayed for was not barred by limitation, and in fact arose on account of the

defence of the petitioner/defendant no.1 in the amended written statement, no

fault can be found with the impugned order dated 4.5.2013 allowing the

amendment application.

5. There is another reason why the impugned order dated 4.5.2013

cannot be challenged by which the amendment was allowed inasmuch as on the

subsequent date i.e 13.11.2013, the petitioner/defendant specifically prayed for

time to file the amended written statement, and which was allowed subject to

payment of costs of Rs.3,000/-. Once therefore the impugned order dated

4.5.2013 is not challenged and in fact on the next date time is sought to file the

amended written statement, the petitioner/defendant no.1 is estopped from

questioning the impugned order dated 4.5.2013 allowing the amendment. This

is another reason why the impugned order dated 4.5.2013 cannot be interfered

with.

6. Dismissed.

SEPTEMBER 02, 2014                                    VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
Ne