SIDHARTH SAREEN Vs. HIRA REALTORS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein (hereinafter called 'the contesting Respondents') filed a suit being CS (OS) No. 260/2008 inter alia praying as under:

(2.) Subsequently, an application being IA No. 5611/2008 was filed by the contesting Respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for the amendment of the plaint. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 22nd October, 2008 permitted the amendments on the ground that the amendments sought were clarificatory in nature and purport to give better particulars of the transactions, subject matter of the suit and the suit is at the initial stage. It is also observed that the counsel for the contesting Respondents has stated that, neither any admission is being withdrawn by way of the amendments nor any stand contradictory to the stand taken in the plaint is being taken. The Appellants herein filed an application being IA No. 14255/2008, for review of order dated 22nd October, 2008. The said review application was also dismissed vide order dated 13th February, 2009. The orders of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd October, 2008 and 13th February, 2009 are the orders impugned before us.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Appellants has contended that the amendments seek to withdraw the admissions made by the contesting Respondents herein and thus take away a vested right which has accrued to the Appellants. Not only does the amendment seek to withdraw the admission but also set up a new case and hence in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court the amendments should not be allowed. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decisions rendered in the cases of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others v. K.K.Modi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 385 and Madhu Sudan Gupta v. Dinesh Gupta, 133 (2006) DLT 459 (DB).