Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 25
CS SCJ 926/23
JATIN SEGHAL Vs. BALBIR KAUR MANN
12.08.2026
Present: Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
Ms. Shivani Vasan, Ld. Counsel for defendant no.6/MCD. (through VC)
Mr. Kumar Sushobhan, Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 1 to 5. (through VC)
Despite repeated directions from the court, Ms. Shivani Vasan, Ld. counsel
for defendant no.6/MCD has not turned her camera on. Such conduct of Ld. counsel for
defendant no.6/MCD is neither permissible nor appreciated.
Matter is listed for arguments on the application under Order VI Rule 17
CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. In such application, the plaintiff has stated that she
wants to add court fees of Rs.13/- for the relief of permanent injunction. Furthermore, the
plaintiff has sought to amend the prayer clause to seek inclusion of defendant no.6/MCD
in the prayer so that in addition to private defendants, MCD be also directed to remove the
gate, which forms the subject matter of the present dispute.
Reply has already been filed to such application on behalf of defendants no.
1 to 5. It is
inter-
alia stated that plaintiff has sought to enlarge the suit by filing the present
application and invoking the relief against defendant no.6.
Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
As regards the court fees, in the opinion of this court, as the plaintiff has
only prayed for only one relief of mandatory injunction for removal of the iron gate, the
affixation of court fees of Rs.13/- appears to be just and proper and there does not appear to
be any deficit court fees. Therefore, no requirement for amendment of the plaint is made
out on this aspect.
The applicant / plaintiff has failed to aver and clarify as to why direction of
mandatory injunction would be passed against defendant no.6/MCD for removal of gate in
-- 1 of 2 --
question as in the opinion of this court, it is not the concern of the MCD for installing and
removing the main gate set up / installed by a private society. It may be the case of the
plaintiff that such gates were installed without permission of the MCD, yet MCD, in any
event, do not appear to be either necessary or proper party in the present suit as far as the
contents of the plaint and the reliefs claimed are considered. The direction regarding
removal of the gate, if at all, is granted after the trial, the same shall be upon the private
defendants and not upon the MCD.
Accordingly, the application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the
plaint is found to be meritless and is hereby declined and disposed off.
Furthermore, defendant no.6/MCD is not found to be necessary or proper
for the purposes of the present suit and is hereby deleted from the array of parties in the
exercise of powers under Order I Rule 10 CPC.
Let the amended memo of parties be filed by the next date of hearing by the
plaintiff.
It appears that no WS has been filed on behalf of defendants no. 1 to 5
despite directions in the order dated 22.01.2025. Let the same be clarified on the NDOH by
defendants no. 1 to 5.
Plaintiff as well as defendants no. 1 to 5 shall remain present in person on the
NDOH.
Be adjourned for framing of issues for 02.11.2026.
(Bharat Aggarwal)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
12.08.2026
-- 2 of 2 --