Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS DJ 301/23
MADAN LAL Vs. SANJEEV RAWAL
01/04/2026
Present : Sh. Akshay Tyagi, Ld. Proxy Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. S. S. Handa & Sh. Shiva Handa, Ld. Counsel for
defendants with defendant no. 1 & 2.
Be awaited for presence of Ld. Main Counsel for the
plaintiff.
(VIKRAM BALI)
DISTRICT JUDGE-02/NORTH/ROHINI
DELHI/01/04/2026
At 01:03 p.m.
Present: Sh. Neeraj Dahiya, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Sh. S. S. Handa and Sh. Shiva Handa, Counsel for
the defendants.
ORDER ON APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 CPC
1. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff presses his application
under Order 6 rule 17 CPC dated 06/12/2025 for amendment of
plaint.
2. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that suit has
been filed for Possession of suit property, for Declaration that
documents of defendant are forged and fabricated and for
Permanent Injunction restraining defendant from creating third
party interest in the suit property. It is submitted that the suit
-- 1 of 5 --
property is C - 92, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi - 110033, Ground
Floor and Second Floor.
FIRST ARGUMENT
3. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff contends that plaintiff is
residing in first floor. Defendant no.1 is residing in ground floor.
Defendant no. 2 is residing in the second floor. Prayer is that by
way of amendment, the relief of Mandatory injunction restraining
defendants from putting on lock on terrace of suit property and
restraining block of free access to the plaintiff, is sought to be
added. It is stated that issues are yet to be framed and thus, the
prayer be allowed.
4. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the defendants contends
that terrace is not part of suit property and thus, application be
dismissed.
5. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the
defendants that it is not pleaded case of the plaintiff that he is in
possession of the terrace portion and thus, present application be
dismissed.
Scope of interference by Court
6. Instead of referring to all the judicial precedent laid
down by the apex court in this regard, it would be apposite to refer
to the case of
Life insurance Corporation Vs. Sanjeev Builders
reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1128 para 70, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, while discussing, has held that:
-- 2 of 5 --
“70. Our final conclusions may be summed up
thus:
(i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a
subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for
application thereof are satisfied and the field of
amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its
purview.
The plea of amendment being barred under
Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and
hence negatived.
(ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are
necessary for determining the real question in
controversy provided it does not cause injustice or
prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is
apparent from the use of the word “shall”, in the
latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
(iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed.
(i) if the amendment is required for effective and
proper adjudication of the controversy between the
parties, and
(ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided
(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the
other side,
(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking
amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear
admission made by the party which confers a right
on the other side and
(c) the amendment does not raise a time barred
claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a
valuable accrued right (in certain
situations).............”
7. Heard. File perused.
8. Perusal of record shows that parties are brothers. Suit
has been filed for Possession of suit property, for Declaration that
documents of defendant are forged and fabricated and for
Permanent Injunction restraining defendant from creating third
-- 3 of 5 --
party interest in the suit property. Suit property is C - 92, Mahendru
Enclave, Delhi - 110033, Ground Floor and Second Floor (herein-
after referred to as suit property).
FINDINGS ON FIRST ARGUMENT
9. Submissions on behalf of plaintiff that plaintiff is
residing in first floor is evidenced from the memo of parties itself.
Defendant no. 1 is stated to be residing in ground floor. Defendant
no. 2 is stated to be residing in the second floor. Limited prayer is
that by way of amendment, the relief of Mandatory injunction
restraining defendants from putting on lock on terrace of suit
property and restraining block of free access to the plaintiff, is
sought to be added. This prayer is genuine. Addition of this prayer
will help the Court to determine the real questions in controversy
between the parties. This will help the Court to finally settle all the
questions in controversy between the parties. The application
deserves to be allowed as :
10. Perusal of record shows that case is at initial stage.
Issues are yet to be framed.
11. Submissions on behalf of defendants that terrace is
not part of suit property and thus, application be dismissed are
without merits as consideration of the merits of the prayer will be
a moot point during the trial.
12. Submissions on behalf of defendants that it is not
pleaded case of the plaintiff that he is in possession of the terrace
portion and thus, present application be dismissed are without
-- 4 of 5 --
merits as consideration of the merits of the prayer will be a moot
point during the trial.
13. For the purposes of mandatory injunction, obligation
in favour of plaintiff is required to be demonstrated in terms of
Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Adjudication of
obligation will be a moot point during the trial and will help the
Court to determine the real questions in controversy between the
parties.
14. Application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, dated
06/12/2025 is allowed. Amended Plaint be filed with copy in
advance to Counsel opposite before 08/04/2026.
15. Now to come up for arguments on application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 10/08/2026.
(VIKRAM BALI)
DISTRICT JUDGE-02/NORTH/ROHINI
DELHI/01/04/2026
-- 5 of 5 --