NAZIR HUSSAIN Vs. NEETA GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner has assailed an order dated 19th March, 2009 of the trial Court passed on an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. The petitioner is a neighborer residing in property No. 3651, Pahari Dheeraj, Delhi. He filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of unauthorized construction being made in the adjoining property against the respondents and gave the number of adjoining property as 3645 Pahari Dheeraj. He also filed a site plan of the adjoining property. By application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC the petitioner wanted to make amendment in the plaint in respect of the correct identification of the property and stated that the correct number of the property was 3645-3648 Pahari Dheeraj and not 3645 only and he should be allowed to rectify this number and place on record a rectified site plan. The learned trial Court disallowed the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had originally filed suit in respect of the property No. 3645 and now he wanted to incorporate property No. 3645-48 under the garb of proposed amendment. The learned trial Court also observed that on the one hand petitioner was claiming to be residing in vicinity of 3645 and on the other hand he was claiming that he was under wrong impression regarding the number of property number. Since the plaintiff was also seeking to file fresh site plan on record that would show that the plaintiff was changing subject matter of the suit and wanted to include some other properties in the pending suit regarding unauthorized construction in one property. This kind of amendment cannot be allowed and in case the petitioner was aggrieved by unauthorized construction in other properties he was at liberty to file fresh suit against the other properties.

(2.) The order is assailed on the ground that trial Court did not even look into the site plan filed along with application and passed order contrary to prayer and facts. It is submitted that the petitioner had only corrected the property number and the site plan had no other variation.

(3.) The petition is opposed by the Counsel for the respondent on the ground that the petitioner wanted to convert a specific suit into a PIL and wanted to enlarge the scope of his earlier suit and this kind of amendment was not permissible. The respondent also assailed the locus standi of the petitioner in filing a suit before the trial Court.