Delhi High Court
Madan Lal Wadhwa vs Gurpreet Kaur on 19 February, 2018
$~6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on :- 19th February, 2018
+ CM(M) 845/2016 and CM APPL.31545/2016
MADAN LAL WADHWA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puneet Wadhwa, attorney of the
petitioner along with Petitioner in
person.
versus
GURPREET KAUR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Chand Zafar, Advocate with
Ms. Mahima Dayani, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is the defendant in the civil suit (CS No.35/2015)
pending on the file of the Civil Judge, South-East District at Saket
Court Complex, New Delhi. The suit of the respondent (the plaintiff
of the suit) seeks relief against the petitioner (the defendant) in respect
of "common lavatory block" attached to the locality known as Double
Storey Quarters, Jungpura Extension, New Delhi-110014, he (the
plaintiff) claiming to be the owner/allottee of quarter/tenement
No.3/47, the defendant claiming to be the owner/allottee of the
quarter/tenement No.3/45. The plaint was filed to seek permanent
injunction qua the defendant to restrain him against interference in the
peaceful enjoyment of the said common lavatory block or from
throwing garbage/junk food near the quarter/tenement of the plaintiff
or the said lavatory block or causing damage to the property of the
plaintiff or against making graffiti on its walls and further against
interference in the repairs of the said walls.
2. It is stated that the defendant has also filed a counter claim
seeking certain reliefs against the plaintiff. In the said counter claim,
concededly the Land & Development Officer (L&DO) of the
Government of India, which is stated to have made the allotment of
the said quarter/tenement and the South Municipal Corporation of
Delhi (SDMC) have been made a party. The grievance of the
petitioner (the defendant) is that the respondent (plaintiff of the suit)
of case has not made the said agencies - L&DO and SDMC as parties
to the main suit. His further grievance is that the issue also concerns
the owner/allottee of the quarter/tenement at the ground floor (i.e.
No.3/44). According to the petitioner/defendant, in absence of the said
parties - L&DO, SDMC and allottee of quarter/tenement No.3/44 -
there is a defect of non-joinder in the main suit.
3. The petitioner/defendant had moved two applications both
under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC),
one to amend the written statement-cum-counter claim and the other
for amendment of the plaint. By his application under Order VI Rule
17 CPC which was considered with another application under Order 1
Rule 10 (2) CPC, for amendment of the written statement-cum-counter
claim, he was allowed to bring on board L&DO and South Delhi
Municipal Corporation (SDMC) as parties to the proceedings arising
out of the counter claim but similar prayer qua the plaint was not
accepted.
4. The submission of the petitioner that the above mentioned two
orders of the civil Judge are contradictory cannot be accepted. It has
to be borne in mind that the counter-claim stands as proceedings
independent of the civil suit though both require to be proceeded with
simultaneously. The defendant of the suit may have some relief to
claim in the above context against L&DO and the local municipal
authority. But, for such purposes it is not incumbent on the plaintiff of
the case to also implead such agencies or another neighbour as
additional defendants. It is his prerogative to proceed against the
parties he chooses to litigate with. The cause of action pleaded in the
suit being essentially against the defendant, there is absolutely no need
for L&DO or SDMC or for that matter the third allottee to be
impleaded as additional defendants in the main suit.
5. The petition is wholly misconceived and is consequently
dismissed. The application filed therewith also stands disposed of.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
FEBRUARY 19, 2018
vk
