PROMOD KHANNA Vs. SUBOD KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By I.A. No. 80/2011 the Defendants seek rejection of the amended plaint under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC. Vide I.A. No. 6086/2011 under Order VII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC the Defendants seek direction to the Plaintiffs to value the reliefs in accordance with law and on their failure to do so rejection of the plaint.

(2.) Arguments on both the applications have been heard together.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Applicants/Defendants states that Prayer-(c) in the amended plaint is for a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants directing the Defendants to revert back the possession of "Part-A & C" of the property bearing No. W-105, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi to the Plaintiffs after removing any construction done on the said "A" and "C" portion illegally and without any authority. It is contended that a suit for relief of mandatory injunction without seeking consequential relief of possession is not maintainable and thus the amended plaint is liable to the rejected on this ground. Reliance is placed on Devender Lal Mehta vs. Shri Dharmender Mehta and another, 2009 AIR(Del) 189, Geetanjali Nursing Home (P) Ltd. vs. Dileep Makhija, 2004 AIR(Del) 53 and Jagdish Chandra vs. Basant Kumar Ghos and another, 1963 AIR(Pat) 308. It is further contended that for seeking relief of possession ad-valorem court fee has to be paid as held in Punjab Exchange vs. Rajdhani Grants Ltd., 1975 RLR 485.