Interim Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 18
RC ARC 167/23
SOHAN LAL Vs. VICCO AGENCIES PVT LTD
12.03.2025
Present : Mr. Yashasvi S.K. Chaukse, Ld. Counsel for petitioner. (through VC)
Ld. Counsel for respondent.
Petitioner has not paid the cost imposed vide order dated 21.12.2024. Oral
request for waiver of cost is made. However, considering the detailed order dated
21.12.2024, cost cannot be waived off. Let it be paid during the course of the day against
receiving to the respondent.
It has been apprised by both the sides that the matter is at the stage of
arguments on the application for leave to defend, however, the respondent has filed the
leave to defend application to the unamended/first/original eviction petition and not the
amended petition, which was allowed to be taken on record by this court vide order dated
31.03.2023.
It is further apprised that thereafter, another application under Order VI Rule
17 CPC seeking to carry out further amendments in the first amended petition has been
filed on 15.04.2024 by the petitioner. Reply of the same has been filed by the respondent
today in the court. Spare copy thereof has been placed on record. Let the same be released
to the opposite side against proper acknowledgment, as per rules.
In the second application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC
on 15.04.2024, it is stated that petitioner has inadvertently mentioned wrong PIN code of
the address/tenanted premises as the actual PIN code of the tenanted premises is ‘110005’,
whereas the first amended petition records the same as ‘110006’. It is further argued by the
petitioner that there is no other amendment sought to be carried out in the first amended
petition except than modifying the aforesaid PIN code.
-- 1 of 3 --
Per-
contra, respondent has stated in his response that there are different
signatures of the petitioner in the affidavit as well as in the proposed amended petition. It
is further stated that petitioners are not serious in this case and this is the second amended
petition filed by them. It is further argued on behalf of respondents that the second
amended petition has not been signed by the petitioners.
Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
It is quite apparent from the record that petitioners have remained most
negligent in drafting the petitions repeatedly due to their conduct which is apparent on
record. It is noticed that applications seeking amendment of the original petition have been
filed for several clerical/inadvertent errors as this is the second application seeking
amendment in the eviction petition. However, in the opinion of this Court, no prejudice
would be caused to the respondent if the present application is allowed and the second
amended petition filed alongwith the application is allowed to be taken on record. It is trite
that technicalities shall not come in the way of doing substantial justice. Further, mere
casual drafting cannot lead to denial of legal rights to the litigant if he is otherwise found to
be entitled to the same.
The objection taken by Ld. Counsel for respondent regarding varying in
signatures does not appear to have any merit atleast at this stage and hence, such objection
is declined. Further, perusal of page 20 of the second amended petition shows that
petitioners have duly signed the same and they have also furnished their affidavits with the
second amended petition.
The application is accordingly allowed and disposed off subject to a further
cost of Rs. 3,000/- to be deposited by the petitioners in DLSA, Central, THC. Let receipt
thereof be placed on record within two weeks from today.
The second amended petition filed by the petitioners on 15.04.2024
alongwith this application is hereby taken on record. Copy of the amended petition has
already been supplied to the respondents.
-- 2 of 3 --
In these circumstances, respondent is given liberty to file fresh application
seeking leave to defend in terms of Section 25-B read with Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act
within two weeks from today with advance copy to the opposite side.
Let reply, if any, be filed by the petitioner within two weeks thereafter with
advance copy to the opposite side.
Let rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter with advance copy
to opposite side.
Put up for arguments on application for leave to defend on 08.07.2025.
Petitioners shall remain present in person on the NDOH.
Counsels for both the sides are also expected to remain present in person on
the NDOH.
(Bharat Aggarwal)
ACJ-cum-ARC, Central
District, Tis Hazari Courts
12.03.2025
-- 3 of 3 --