Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 31 CS SCJ 795/25 BIMLA Vs. KRISHAN
24.03.2026
Present: Sh. Yogesh Aggarwal Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. J.C. Vashisht Ld. Counsel for defendant.
An application U/o 1 rule 10 CPC made on
behalf of plaintiff for impleading one Kiran is pending
disposal. Reply to the said application has already been
filed on behalf of defendant.
It is stated by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that in
their WS, the defendant no.1 and 2 have brought to the
knowledge of plaintiff that one Will is allegedly executed
by late Sh. Vijender Kumar in favour of the proposed
defendant i.e. mother of defendant no.1 and 2. The said
assertion has been reiterated in the reply to the application.
In view of the aforesaid, the said proposed
defendant is a necessary party to the present suit and is
hereby impleaded.
An application U/o 6 rule 17 CPC is also
pending disposal. By way of this application, the plaintiff
has sought to incorporate a relief of declaration against the
alleged Will executed by Sh. Vijender Kumar in favour of
Ms. Kiran to be declared as null and void. In reply to the
said application it is stated that the proceeding for obtaining
probate of the said Will has already been filed by the
defendants and as such the amendment application should
not be allowed.
Heard. Record perused.
-- 1 of 2 --
It is well-settled that while considering an
application for amendment, the Court is not required to
examine the merits of the proposed amendment unless the
same touches upon the very root of the matter or affects the
jurisdiction of the Court. The determinative factor is
whether such amendment is permissible within the ambit of
the provisions of the CPC. In the present case, the suit is at
its nascent stage, and the defendants have specifically
challenged the plaintiff’s title to the suit property by placing
reliance upon a Will. In view thereof, the amendment
sought assumes necessity for proper adjudication of the
controversy. Accordingly, the amendment is allowed in the
interest of justice
Amended plaint is taken on record.
However, it is noted that in the amended plaint
the relief of declaration has been valued for the purpose of
jurisdiction at Rs.200/- only, which in the considered
opinion of this court is not proper in light of Sec.7 (iv) (c)
Second Proviso as applicable to Delhi r.w.s. 7 (v) of Court
Fees Act and Sec.8 of Suits Valuation Act r.w. Delhi High
Court Rules.
The plaintiff is accordingly directed to rectify
the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction
within a week from today.
Be put up for further proceedings on
19.05.2026.
(Nitish Kumar Sharma)
JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE
North, Rohini Courts,Delhi/24.03.2026
-- 2 of 2 --