BIMLA KHANNA Vs. M S PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.2.1992 passed by Shri Z.S.Solanki, Sub-Judge First Class, Delhi whereby be has dismissed the application of the petitioner-plaintiff filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent- defendant on the allegation that the petitioner-plaintiff is a tenant in respect of one shop forming part of property bearing Municipal No. 618-A, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi and the respondents-defendants have threatened her to dispossess her forcibly. According to the petitioner-plaintiff, the municipal number of the house in fact is T-618-A and not T-618-A as mentioned in the plaint. In fact property No. T-618-A has been given by the landlord privately and now it transpires that the actual number is T-618-B and not T-618-A. In order to avoid this controversy at a later stage, the petitioner-tenant filed the application for amendment that the municipal No.T-618-A as mentioned in the plaint be amended as T-618-Band according to him this amendment is formal in nature.

(3.) The respondent-defendent has resisted the application for amendment on the ground that the petitioner-plaintiff has played a fraud on the Court while filing the suit in respect of some other property and by getting ex-parte status quo order and by procuring the local Commissioner's report in respect of property No. T-618-A and obtained forcibly illegal possession of the property No. T-618-B on 5.2.1992. The plea put forward by the petitioner-plaintiff is wholly a concocted plea and it is not formal in nature. . According to the respondent, although the stay order was granted by the Court in respect of property No. T-618-A but he got the forcible possession of the property bearing No. T-618-B on the pretext that it is the same property and now he has Cleverly and malafide filed this application for amendment to grab the property bearing No. T-618-B which actually belongs to the present respondent-landlord. According to him, an entirely new case has been set up and therefore the amendment prayed for cannot be allowed.