SHANKER LAL ARORA vs RAJNEESH RAMPAL
$~5 & 6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision:21st March, 2024
+ CS(COMM) 419/2022, I.A. 9465/2022, I.A. 14865/2022, I.A. 14868/2022, I.A. 16601/2022, I.A. 19338/2022
SHANKER LAL ARORA ….. Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Sanjay Chhabra, Mr. Satish Choudhary and Ms. Sugandhi Virmani, Advocates
versus
RAJNEESH RAMPAL ….. Defendant
Through: Mr. S.D. Singh, Mr. Kawaljit Singh and Mrs. Meenu Singh, Advocates
6
+ CS(OS) 622/2019, I.A. 16767/2019, I.A. 5274/2022, I.A. 19385/2022, I.A. 19386/2022, I.A. 19389/2022, I.A. 19391/2022
RAJNEESH RAMPAL ….. Plaintiff
Through: Mr. S.D. Singh, Mr. Kawaljit Singh and Mrs. Meenu Singh, Advocates
versus
SHANKER LAL ARORA@ SHANKAR ARORA & ANR.
….. Defendants
Through: Mr. Sanjay Chhabra, Mr. Satish Choudhary and Ms. Sugandhi Virmani, Advocate
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
I.A.19337/2024 (under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed on behalf of the defendant for rejection of plaint) in CS(COMM) 419/2022:??????
1. The present application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC), has been filed for rejection of the plaint, on behalf of the defendant.
2. The Reply to the application, has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff.
3. The main ground for seeking the rejection of the plaint is that the plaintiff has failed to place the original documents on record, and the plaint is liable to be rejected on this ground.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff has explained that the original document was produced at the time of recording of evidence and the copy of the documents were exhibited after comparing with the original documents and thereafter, the original has been returned to the plaintiff. However, he undertakes to place the original documents on record.
5. Be placed on record within 7 days.
6. List for arguments on 22.10.2024.
I.A.19391/2024 (under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint) in CS(OS) 622/2019
7. The application under Order VI Rule 17, CPC, has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint.
8. It is submitted that the plaintiff has filed a suit for Declaration that he is the sole absolute, exclusive and rightful owner of the freehold property bearing No. 198, Sharda Niketan, Pitampura, Delhi-110034 (hereinafter referred to as the suit property). The plaintiff has submitted that he is not being allowed access to the suit property and on 09.08.2022, when he tried to enter and the defendants son physically assaulted the plaintiff and his wife.
9. After paragraph 19, the plaintiff wants to add Paragraphs 19A to 19E, to explain how, when he and his wife tried to enter the suit property on 09.08.2022, altercations took place between them and the defendants son. He further wants to incorporate details about the complaint recorded vide Diary No. 113A, on 09.08.2022, on which no action has been taken by the SHO, P.S. Rani Bagh. He also wants to state that on 13.08.2022, the plaintiffs wife was called to the Police Station for recording of her statement in respect of the complaint dated 09.08.2022. The Investigating Officer was biased towards the defendants son and compelled the plaintiffs wife to sign a statement to ensure that no action whatsoever be taken against the defendants son. He further intends to add that the defendants son has become emboldened by the inaction of the police and other authorities, who now dares to physically assault the plaintiff and his wife because of which they are living in constant fear.
10. The plaintiff further intends to add Paragraph 21A, to take an objection that Collaboration Agreement dated 23.09.2017, is an unregistered and insufficiently stamped document and therefore, has no bearing whatsoever in regard to the suit property because of the mandatory statutory requirements of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
11. The plaintiff also intends to add Paragraph 22A, to certify the authenticity of the documents, which have been annexed along with the List of Documents. A prayer is, therefore, made that the plaintiff may be permitted to amend the plaint accordingly.
12. The application is contested by the defendants, who have asserted that this amendment application has been filed with the sole objective of delaying the proceedings. The present Suit was filed on 11.10.2019 and the issues were framed on 01.02.2022. Thereafter, the evidence was directed to be recorded in time bound manner within six months from the date of Order dated 01.02.2022. It is submitted that since the issues have already been framed and the evidence of PW-1 has already been filed in examination-in-chief, there is no reason for allowing this application, at this stage.
13. Moreover, the amendments sought to be made in Paragraph 21A, in regard to the Collaboration Agreement being insufficiently stamped or not-registered, that is already covered in the issue No.6, which has been already framed on the basis of pleadings. It is submitted that the present application is without merits and is liable to be dismissed.
14. Submissions heard.
15. The Suit has been filed by the plaintiff for the relief of Declaration and Cancellation of the Collaboration Agreement dated 23.09.2017. The various incidents sought to be incorporated in Paragraph 19A to19E, relate to the attempt made by the plaintiff and his family members, to enter the property and how they were prevented from doing so by the defendants. These aspects are absolutely irrelevant for the purpose of determination of the issues that arise from the pleadings. Therefore, these proposed amendments by way of inserting Paragraph 19A to 19E, are rejected as irrelevant.
16. The plaintiff further wants to insert Paragraph 21A, to raise the plea that the Collaboration Agreement is inadmissible being unregistered and insufficiently stamped document. The Issue No. 6 has already been framed as under:-
Whether the Collaboration Agreement dated 23.09.2017 stands cancelled as a void, invalid, nonest and illegal in the eyes of law?
17. The illegality of the document on account of insufficient stamping and non-registration is covered in Issue No. 6 and also being the legal objections they can be still taken by the defendants, when the documents are sought to be exhibited. Therefore, there is no need of specific averments in this regard and the addition of Paragraph 21A is also rejected.
18. The third amendment sought to, is to insert Paragraph 22A, only to certify that the documents filed with the List of Documents, are genuine and authentic. This amendment is also irrelevant as the List of Documents and documents already stand filed.
19. The proposed amendments are without merit and the amendment Application, is hereby dismissed.
CS(OS) 622/2019:
20. Be listed before the learned Joint Registrar for recording of the evidence on 02.05.2024.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
MARCH 21, 2024/RS
CS(COMM) 419/2022 & CS(OS) 622/2019 Page 1 of 5