Delhi High Court
Chandro Devi & Ors vs M/S Manav Bharati India ... on 7 September, 2016
$~A-3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 07.09.2016
+ CM(M) 864/2016 & CM Nos.32166/2016
CHANDRO DEVI & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Alok Kumar & Mr.Neeraj
Gupta, Advocates
versus
M/S MANAV BHARATI INDIA
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ..... Respondent
Through Mr.R.K.Vats, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J. (ORAL)
1. By the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 11.5.2016 by which
an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the
respondent/plaintiff for amendment of the plaint was allowed.
2. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of possession.
As per the plaint, late Shri Laxmi Chand had been given the job of a mali
by the respondent and he worked in that capacity till 16.9.1995 when his
services were terminated. The said Laxmi Chand/original occupant even
after termination continued to reside in a temporary shed covered with
CM(M)864/2016 Page 1
asbestos sheets hung on boundary wall at the extreme corner on the
eastern side of the school campus.
3. Laxmi Chand expired on 28.11.2000. As none of the LRs of Late
Laxmi Chand were impleaded the suit stood abated. However, vide order
dated 21.12.2012 the trial court set aside the order of abatement. The said
order was also confirmed by this court.
4. It is the submission of the respondent that during the period of
abatement of the suit the petitioners have altered the area of the suit
property in their possession. Hence, application has been filed for
amendment of the plaint to incorporate subsequent events. As per the
application it is sought to be urged that the petitioner has occupied the
additional area illegally. Accordingly, consequential reliefs have also been
sought to be added.
5. The trial court by the impugned order allowed the application of the
respondent for amendment noting that the amendment would not cause
any injustice to the petitioner and are necessary for the purpose of
determining the real question in controversy.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that he has perfected his title to an area by means
of adverse possession and hence the present application cannot be
permitted. He has also submitted that there are two different cause of
actions which the respondent cannot consolidate. One cause of action is
recovery of an area which as per the respondent was given on account of
the fact that late Shri Laxmi Chand was in service of the respondent.
CM(M)864/2016 Page 2
Second one is that some portion of the property has been encroached upon
by the petitioner. He submits that this amounts to two different cause of
actions which cannot be joined together.
7. In my opinion, there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned
order. All that the respondent is doing is adding relief based on
subsequent events. The case of the respondent is that after the abatement
of the suit the LRs of late Shri Laxmi Chand have encroached upon
additional areas. Hence, the plaint is sought to be amended to incorporate
the relief of possession for the extended areas also.
8. The proposed amendments are based on subsequent events. They
do not change the nature of the suit. It also does not seek to add any
additional facts or reliefs which can be said to be barred by limitation.
Joinder of cause of action is also permissible when parties are common.
Further at this stage, no adjudication on the merits is permissible.
9. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present petition and
the same is dismissed. All pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of accordingly.
JAYANT NATH, J.
SEPTEMBER 07, 2016
n
CM(M)864/2016 Page 3
