(1) Digitally
signed by
CS DJ No. 106/25 SHAGUN
SHAGUN
SHARMA
SHARMA
SITA RAM SUREKHA (HUF)
Date:
2025.06.04
[Link]
Vs.
+0530
RAJESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY & ANR
CNR No. DLCT01-001152-2025
04.06.2025
Present :- Mr. Karan Deep Dahiya, Ld. counsel for the
Plaintiff.
Plaintiff has filed court fee of Rs 11,616/-.
Ld. counsel for Plaintiff has filed an application
under Order VI Rule 17 R/w Section 151 CPC seeking
amendment of the suit alongwith amended suit for Declaration,
Permanent Injunction, Possession and Application under Order
39 Rule 1 and 2 R/w Section 151 CPC alongwith Amended
Plaint. Vakalatnama filed. Same is taken on record.
ORDER
(1) Vide this order, this Court shall dispose of the
application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read
with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking
amendment of the plaint.
(2) The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the
captioned suit was filed inter alia seeking a decree of declaration,
permanent injunction, and possession in respect of private shop
No. F9, property bearing No. 2423-29, situated at Ward No. 7,
Shraddhanand Marg, GB Road, Delhi–110006. It is averred that
the plaintiff, being the eldest male member of the family, is the
Karta of Sitaram Surekha HUF and manages the day-to-day
affairs of the HUF.
(3) It is further averred that defendant no. 2 has no right,
title, or interest in the suit property, and that defendant no. 1
(2)
could not have purchased the said property without the plaintiff’s
knowledge. The plaintiff submits that due to an inadvertent
omission, appropriate pleadings regarding valuation and court
fees were not included in the original plaint. The said omission,
according to the plaintiff, was neither deliberate nor intentional
but purely accidental.
(4) By way of the present application, the plaintiff seeks
leave to:
(a) Incorporate the correct valuation of the suit for
purposes of jurisdiction and court fees, and affix the appropriate
court fee stamp.
(b) Delete paragraph D of the prayer clause,
withdrawing the claim for mesne profits.
(c) Insert amended paragraphs as mentioned in para 5 of
the application.
(5) It is submitted that the amendment sought does not
alter the nature or character of the original suit, and the suit is at
the initial stage, as defendants are yet to be served and no written
statement has been filed.
Findings of the Court
(6) The principles governing amendment of pleadings
under Order VI Rule 17 CPC are well-settled. The Court must
assess:
(a) Whether the amendment is necessary for the
determination of the real questions in controversy.
(b) Whether the amendment introduces a new or
inconsistent case.
(c) Whether the amendment would cause prejudice to
the other party.
(d) Whether the amendment is bona fide.
(7) In the present case, the proposed amendment seeks
to correct the valuation of the suit and affix proper court fees,
(3)
which is a procedural necessity and does not in any manner
change the foundational facts or the cause of action pleaded. The
withdrawal of the claim for mesne profits further narrows the
scope of relief rather than expanding or altering it.
(8) Moreover, the application has been filed at a
preliminary stage, when defendants are yet to be served, and
therefore no prejudice is likely to be caused to the opposite side.
(9) The proposed amendment appears to be bona fide
and is necessary for a just and complete adjudication of the suit.
The Court does not find any attempt to set up an inconsistent or
new case.
Conclusion
(10) In view of the foregoing, the application under Order
VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC is allowed. Let the
amended plaint be taken on record. Court fee of Rs. 11,616/- is
taken on record.
(11) At request, issue summons of the suit along with
notice of the application under order 39 rule 1 and 2 to
Defendants on filing of PF, RC, Speed Post by the plaintiff. Steps
to be taken within seven days from today.
(12) Re-list on 02.08.2025.
(Shagun Sharma)
DJ-12 Central, THC,
Delhi/04.06.2025
