Delhi High Court
Ayesha Siddiqui vs Rambir Singh (Since Deceased) ... on 27 February, 2023
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/001536
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 27.02.2023
+ CM(M) 399/2022
AYESHA SIDDIQUI ..... Petitioner
versus
RAMBIR SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Ms. Renu Verma, Advocate with
petitioner in person.
For the Respondent : Mr. Y. P. Yadav, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 23.12.2021 in Suit no.
1193/2019 titled "Rambir Singh Vs. Ayesha Siddiqui" whereby the
learned Trial Court permitted the respondent who is representative of the
deceased plaintiff and happens to be the brother of the respondent
herein, whereby the site plan which was originally filed by the deceased
Rambir Singh along with the plaint is permitted to be replaced with a
fresh site plan sought to be filed by the respondent.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
Signing Date:02.03.2023
16:25:13
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/001536
that the application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC, 1908 seeking
replacement of the existing site plan with the site plan freshly got
drafted by the representative of the deceased plaintiff could not have
been placed on record since it would amount to changing the description
of the property, as also caused prejudice to the petitioner/defendant
inasmuch as the written statement based on the existing site plan already
stands filed by the petitioner/defendant on record.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the LRs of the deceased original
plaintiff submits that fresh site plan which is being sought to be placed
on record is merely a site plan which brings out the clearer picture of the
disputed subject suit property and no amendment in the plaint is being
sought.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent further submits that
no prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner/defendant inasmuch as the
said site plan is yet to undergo the rigors of the trial and the
petitioner/defendant would be at liberty to question the veracity and the
correctness of the description of the subject suit property in the fresh site
plan.
5. This Court has heard the arguments of the respective counsels as
also perused the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court.
6. This Court has closely scrutinized the original site plan at page 37
of the present petition which is a detailed site plan showing the suit
property as also the detailed description of the names of the properties
owned by others. The plan at page 37 is detailed in respect also of the
description of the surrounding area including the road etc.
7. This Court has also examined the disputed site plan which has
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
Signing Date:02.03.2023
16:25:13
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/001536
been placed on record vide the impugned order which is at page 160 of
the present petition. On a plain perusal of the site plan it comes to fore
that the same is absolutely bereft of any details as was mentioned in the
original site plan at page 37 and appears to be a method of covering up
any deficiency or admissions which may have occurred in the original
site plan.
8. A bare perusal of the second site plan also brings to fore that the
details in respect of the surrounding areas with the names of properties
owned by others have also been obliterated. It does not seem to be
natural.
9. This Court could have considered, such fresh site plan being filed
to correct the clerical errors or misdescriptions so far as the property
numbers are concerned. However, the fresh site plan is bereft of any
such material particulars.
10. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that no
prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner/defendant in case the fresh
site plan is brought on record is rejected. This is for the reason that the
advantage or dis-advantage or any other material particulars which may
have arisen in favour of the petitioner/defendant in respect of the
original site plan, may get diluted or obliterated in case the second site
plan is permitted to be placed on record.
11. No doubt that the said site plan would be subject to the rigors of
the trial, cross examination by the petitioner/defendant, however, any
such move by the subsequent persons, who stepped into the shoes of the
deceased original plaintiff, has to be dealt with by this Court with great
caution and circumspection.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
Signing Date:02.03.2023
16:25:13
Neutral Citation Number 2023/DHC/001536
12. The impugned order is bereft of any such reasoning and in a
perfunctory and routine manner has permitted the filing of the said site
plan without considering the vast difference in the description and other
details between the two site plans.
13. It is quite obvious from the plain reading of the impugned order
that there has been a complete non-application of mind in respect of the
observations made by this Court.
14. Learned Trial Court has also perfunctorily differentiated the
judgments relied upon by the learned counsel to buttress their arguments
and has not considered the purport of the same.
15. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 23.12.2021 is
rendered unsustainable in law and is consequently quashed and set aside
16. The site plan at page 160 of the present petition shall not be taken
on record by the learned Trial Court.
17. Learned Trial Court shall now proceed in accordance with law.
18. The petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
FEBRUARY 27, 2023
ms
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VINOD KUMAR
Signing Date:02.03.2023
16:25:13
