Interim Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 21 CS DJ 174/24
SUNIL SAGAR AND ANR Vs. VEER SINGH GAUTAM
13.11.2025
Present: Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Ld. Counsel for defendant.
Present order shall dispose of an an application under
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
Factual Background : In nutshell, plaintiff filed the
subject suit seeking possession of the suit property from the defendant
on the ground that he had purchased the same from its previous owner
on 23.03.2021 vide a registered sale deed. As per the plaintiff,
defendant was tenant of the previous owner occupying one room (Left
side) of the property bearing No. 2840-41, with roof/terrace rights built
on the free hold land measuring 54.34 sq. mtrs approx situated at Gali
Mangal Singh, Mohalla Niyarian, G B Road, Delhi-110006 and has
assured him that he shall vacate the same but despite this assurance
defendant failed to vacate the same, therefore, the present suit has been
filed by the plaintiff to gain the possession of the above portion of the
property.
Defendant in his written statement denied the claim of
the plaintiff. As per the defendant, he had purchased the suit property
from its earlier owner Rajender vide sale documents i.e., GPA,
-- 1 of 3 --
Agreement to Sell, will, receipt executed on 23.11.1992 and since
then, he was in use and occupation of the same.
Now, vide the present application under Order 6 Rule 17
CPC, defendant seeks to amend his WS by adding one more paragraph
to the preliminary objections. It is averred in the application that
plaintiff has filed the present suit on the basis a forged sale deed
without disclosing the full chart of their ancestors or line of
descendants and further, without demarcation of property bearing no.
2840 & 2841 and even without disclosing whether it is a freehold or
government property etc. As per further averments, in its written
statement defendant could not specifically state that the sale deed
relied upon by the plaintiff is forged and also, it was not specifically
mentioned possession of the defendant since 1992, status of land and
further that there is not freehold property in the locality and sale is only
with respect to possessory rights and super structure. Accordingly, to
incorporate all these defences and facts defendant wants to
introduce/add one additional paragraph to the preliminary objections.
No reply to above application was filed by the plaintiff
and it is recorded in the order sheet dated 24.02.2025 that Ld. Counsel
for plaintiff does not intend to file reply and straight away argue the
same.
-- 2 of 3 --
Accordingly, arguments were addressed by both the
parties on 10.10.2025.
The case is at initial stage as evidence has not
commenced and even issues have not been framed. Vide the present
application, defendant only intends to add some more grounds to his
preliminary objections. No prejudice is going to be caused to the
plaintiff as he may file a fresh replication. However, defendant ought
to have raised all the objections in his original written statement. But
the delay can be compensated by appropriate costs. Accordingly, the
present application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is allowed subject to
the cost of Rs. 8,000/- to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
Amended WS is already on record to which plaintiff
may file amended replication.
Put up for filing of amended replication,
admission/denial of documents regarding which parties may file their
affidavits and framing of issues on 12.12.2025.
(CHANDER MOHAN)
District Judge-14 (LAC)
Central, THC, Delhi/13.11.2025
-- 3 of 3 --