Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: -1-
18 CS 2/25
SHRI BALI ARYA Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi MCD
Through ARYACommissioner AND ANR
15.09.2025
Present: Sh. Gagan Kumar Singhal and Sh. Suresh
Chaudhary, Ld. Counsels for the plaintiff.
Sh. Vijay Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for the
defendant/MCD.
Fresh vakalatnama filed on behalf of the plaintiff.
Same is taken on record.
Arguments have been heard on the application under
Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff. Record has been
perused.
First and foremost, it is observed that in effect the
application under Section 151 CPC is an application under Order
6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. Thus, keeping
in mind substance over nomenclature, the application is being
treated as an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.
By way of the application, the plaintiff seeks to add
a prayer for mandatory injunction against the defendant/MCD for
restoring the trade license of the plaintiff that has allegedly been
illegally and arbitrarily cancelled. The present application has
been filed in response to the status report filed by the defendants
stating that the general trade license No. MGTL10241821117439
issued in favour of the plaintiff was cancelled by Central
Lincensing and Enforcement Cell (HQs MCD) on 22.05.2025.
The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff
seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from forcibly sealing or interfering with the peaceful
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
possession and use of shop No. 57A, Aram Park, Shastri Nagar,
Delhi-31 without following due process of law. The amendment
now being sought introduces a new and distinct cause of action
and also changes the nature of the suit. Allowing such an
application would alter the nature and character of the suit which
cannot be permitted. Consequently, the application filed under
Section 151 CPC /Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is found to be devoid of
merit and is hereby dismissed.
Now, let us proceed to examine if the suit is
maintainable. At the very outset, for the sake of clarity, a
preliminary issue qua maintainability of the suit is being framed
as under:
Whether the present suit is barred by virtue of
Section 347 E r/w Section 347 B DMC Act?
Arguments have been heard on behalf of both the
parties. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff seeks some time to furnish a
citation in support of his arguments. He is at liberty to furnish the
same by tomorrow i.e. 16.09.2025.
Be put up for orders on 16.09.2025 at 4:00 pm.
(Dr. Saema Jain)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge
East/KKD Courts/Delhi
15.09.2025
-- 2 of 2 --