KULVINDER SINGH Vs. HARVINDER PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed by the defendant No.1 in a suit instituted by the plaintiff for passing a decree of partition in respect of the ground floor and half of the second floor of premises bearing No.B7, 105, Safdarjung Enclave Extn., New Delhi, and for a decree of permanent injunction. The aforesaid suit was registered on 01.09.2009 and summonses were issued returnable on 27.11.2009. Appearance was entered on behalf of the defendants and written statement came to be filed on 18.11.2009, whereafter replication to the written statement of the defendant No.1 was filed by the plaintiff in February, 2010. After the pleadings were completed, the present application came to be filed by the defendant No.1 on 11.07.2011. Alongwith the present application, the defendant No.1 had filed another application under Order VIII Rule 1(A) read with Section 151 CPC, registered as I.A. No.10888/2011, whereunder he had sought permission to place some additional documents on record.

(2.) In the present application, the defendant No.1 has sought amendment to the written statement by incorporating the brief facts prior to the preliminary objections taken in the written statement. The said brief facts run into 20 paras and have been set out in para 9.1 of the application. Apart from the aforesaid amendment, the defendant No.1 also seeks to amend the averments made on merits in paras 2 and 5 of the written statement and the verification clause as set out in paras 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4 (wrongly typed as para 9.3) of the application. It is averred in the application that the amendments sought to be incorporated are only to buttress the defence already taken by the defendant No.1 in the written statement, which is to the effect that the subject property was acquired by him through a gift deed executed by his father, Shri Gurdial Singh in his favour and duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Delhi. It is stated by the counsel for the defendant No.1 that the amendments sought in the written statement are only to explain the manner in which late Shri Gurdial Singh came to acquire the title in the subject premises and that the defendant No.1 does not propose to rescind from or alter the stand taken by him in the written statement.

(3.) Secondly, it is submitted by the counsel for the defendant No.1 that the present application was accompanied by another application filed under Order VIII Rule 1(A) read with Section 151 CPC, registered as I.A. No.10888/2011, whereunder the defendant No.1 had sought to place on record certain additional documents on the ground that the same were in his custody in Canada and he had brought them to Delhi on 05.07.2011 and then had sought leave to place them on record. Learned counsel states that the relief prayed for in the aforesaid application had not been opposed by the plaintiff as is apparent from a perusal of the order dated 14.07.2011 passed by the Joint Registrar and upon payment of costs of Rs. 3,000/-, the additional documents filed by the defendant No.1 were taken on record, whereafter admission and denial of documents had also been carried out. He contends that all the documents that have been brought on record only substantiate the submissions that have been made in the proposed amendments as mentioned in the present application for purposes of completing the chain to establish the manner in which the title of the subject premises came in the hands of late Shri Gurdial Singh.