SH. VINEET GUPTA vs M/S INDIAN BIODIESAL LIMITED & ORS

2024-02-20 Information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 15th January, 2024
% Pronounced on:20th February, 2024

+ CS(OS) 385/2016

SH. VINEET GUPTA ….. Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Harish Gautam, Advocate.

Versus

M/S INDIAN BIODIESAL LIMITED & ORS ….. Defendants
Through: Mr. Faisal Zafar, Advocate for D-1 to 5.
Mr. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate for D-2.
Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate for D-7 & 8.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
I.A. 17394/2022 (under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff)

1. The present application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC), has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff to amend the plaint.
2. It is submitted in the application that the plaintiff has filed the suit for Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell/Contract dated 14.08.2011 and for Perpetual Injunction and Declaration.
3. It is submitted that one Satya Pal Singh, who was a witness to the Agreement to Sell, informed the plaintiff on 20.09.2019 that he has come to know on 15.09.2019 that another Sale Deed dated 10.07.2014 had been executed by defendant No.3, 4 and 5 before the Sub-Registrar, Hauz Khas, Delhi in favour of two individuals namely, Ravinder Singh and his wife Pushpa Lata, both residents of village Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
4. The plaintiff obtained the certified copy of the Sale Deed on 25.09.2019. On an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC moved by the plaintiff, Ravinder Singh and Pushpa Lata have been impleaded as defendant No.7 and 8 vide Order dated 22.12.2021.
5. The plaintiff has sought permission to insert paragraph 14A to describe the facts on how he came to know about execution of Sale Deed dated 10.07.2014 in favour of defendant No.7 and 8. He also wants to add that defendant No.3, 4 and 5 have sold the property twice by executing the Sale Deed dated 10.07.2014 in favour of defendant No.7 and 8 and another Sale Deed dated 06.05.2015 in favour of defendant No.6. It is also sought to be added that defendant No.1 had entered into false and manipulated Collaboration Agreement dated 13.12.2010 and defendant No.2 as opposed to the actual Agreement dated 09.12.2010. Not only did they make false statements, but he frequently changed his signatures with an intent to take undue advantage.
6. He further wants to incorporate facts about filing of Written Statement by defendant No.2 in another suit before learned ASJ, Saket and also the statement given by defendant No.2 before the Police during the investigations relating to a Complaint Case filed by the plaintiff.
7. The plaintiff in paragraph 17 wants to incorporate about the criminal complaints filed by the plaintiff and that both the complaints are at the stage of the evidence of the complainant.
8. The plaintiff also intends to replace defendant No.6 with defendants and the words he is with they are in paragraph 21.
9. Similarly, in paragraph 32 he intends to replace the para by asserting that the defendants in collusion with one another, may execute the Sale Deed or any other document to dispose of the suit property.
10. Consequential amendments are sought to be made in paragraph 33 describing cause of action and in prayer clause 2 to seek the relief in respect of the Sale Deeds executed in favour of defendant No.6 and defendant No.7 and 8 and also seek possession of the suit property.
11. Defendant No.2 in his reply to the application has submitted that an identical application vide I.A. No.14212/2019 with identical prayers was filed by the plaintiff, which was permitted to be withdrawn by the plaintiff because he realized that it was a abuse of the process of law.
12. The plaintiff has now filed an identical application with the same averments except minor changes. It is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of the Court. It is further asserted that the plaintiff has filed a suit for Specific Performance and Injunction in respect of the Agreement to Sell dated 14.08.2011 and the proposed amendments are irrelevant for the purpose of determination of the controversy in the present suit.
13. It is further asserted that the relief of Specific Performance can be granted even in the absence of subsequent purchasers as they were not a party to the Agreement which is sought to be enforced.
14. Furthermore, the plaintiff has not valued the relief for Declaration and Cancellation of Sale Deed dated 10.07.2014 correctly and he is liable to pay requisite Court Fee.
15. Moreover, by the proposed amendments the plaintiff is seeking to enlarge the scope of the present suit. Under Article 58 and 59 to the Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963 the period for filing a suit for Declaration to declare instruments like Sale Deed as null and void, is three years. The relief which is sought to be claimed in respect of the two Sale Deeds is barred by limitation.
16. In his application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, the plaintiff had asserted that he came to know about the Sale Deed dated 10.07.2014 on 15.09.2019, where as in the application under consideration he has changed the date of his knowledge to 20.09.2019. This in itself reflects the malafide intention of the plaintiff.
17. Moreover, the proposed amendments cannot be permitted under the garb of adding a party to the present suit under Order I Rule 10 CPC. He cannot be allowed to improve/change the stand taken by him in the unamended plaint by adding defendant No.7 and 8 as a party to the present suit. The proposed amendments are irrelevant and cannot be permitted to be incorporated.
18. Similarly, the details in regard to the two Complaint cases filed by the plaintiff had not been sought to be introduced earlier and the same are highly belated. Moreover, the plaintiff by way of incorporating the additional pleadings is proposing to negate the defence taken by the defendant in his Written Statement. If the proposed amendments are allowed, it would cause serious prejudice to the defendant.
19. It is, therefore, submitted that the present application is without merit and is liable to be dismissed.
20. Submissions heard.
21. Admittedly, the defendant No. 7/Ravinder Singh and defendant No. 8/Pushpa Lata had been permitted to be impleaded under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, 1908 vide Order dated 22.12.2021 on the averments that the plaintiff has now come to know that the Sale Deed has been executed in their favour in respect of the suit property.
22. Order I Rule 10(4) of CPC, 1908 itself provides that in case the parties are added to case, the consequential amendments to the pleadings maybe sought by the party. Since, the defendant No. 7/Ravinder Singh and defendant No. 8/Pushpa Lata have now been impleaded, the amendments sought are only consequential to their impleadment and therefore, have to be necessarily allowed.
23. Insofar as the plea of the relief claimed against the defendant No. 7/Ravinder Singh and defendant No. 8/Pushpa Lata being time barred or otherwise, the defendant No. 7/Ravinder Singh and defendant No. 8/Pushpa Lata are at liberty to take these objections in their Written Statement to the amended Plaint.
24. For the foregoing discussion, the present application is allowed.
25. Amended Plaint be filed within 15 days.
26. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.

I.A. 17395/2022 (u/O VII Rule 14 (3) r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908 by plaintiff for placing the documents as mentioned in list of Documents dated 30.09.2019)
27. It is submitted in the present application that the consequent to the impleadment of defendant No. 7/Ravinder Singh and defendant No. 8/Pushpa Lata Application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, 1908 and the corresponding amendments in the pleadings, the plaintiff seeks permission to file the following documents: –
(i) Copy of Sale Deed dated 10.07.2014.
(ii) Copy of Agreement dated 09.12.2010 executed between defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 5.
(iii) Copy of Resolution dated 10.03.2011 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 2.
(iv) Copy of Complaint filed by plaintiff before learned MM against defendant Nos. 2, 4 and others case title Vineet Gupta vs. Harish Arora as well as statements of witnesses and statement of defendant No. 2 and Shri Satya Pal Singh.
(v) Copy of Complaint filed by plaintiff before learned MM against defendant Nos. 2, 4 and others case title Vineet Gupta vs. Darshan Lal &Ors.
(vi) Copy of Suit filed by plaintiff against the defendant Nos.2, 4 and others in respect of Property bearing No. E-386, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, WS filed by defendant No. 2, Possession Letter dated 15.10.2011, Collaboration 06.08.2010, Agreement to Sell dated 11.11.2014, copy of Sale Deed dated 30.01.2015.
28. Considering that aforesaid documents have become relevant after the impleadment of defendant No. 7/Ravinder Singh and defendant No. 8/Pushpa Lata and the amendment of the Plaint, these documents are permitted to be taken on record. The application stands disposed of.
CS(OS) 385/2016
29. List before Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings and admission/denial of the documents on 13.03.2024.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 20, 2024
Va/S. Sharma/ Ek

CS(OS) 385/2016 Page 7 of 7