TANYA REKHI Vs. DIPENDER SINGH REKHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the impugned order dated 15.7.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi disposing of an application under Order 6 Rule 7 of Code of Civil Procedure. The following is the operational portion of the impugned order: In Order 6 Rule 7, CPC it is specifically mentioned that in pleadings no party can raise new claim contrary to the previous one without amend- ment. This provision prohibits inconsistent pleas. In these circumstances, petitioner will bear all legal consequences with regard to admission made in the petition.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that in replication, petitioner has right to clarify all typographical error. However, learned Counsel for the respondent argued that in replication only the pleas made by respondent in the W.S. can be rebutted. Application under Order 6 Rule 7, CPC is disposed of accordingly.

(3.) I have heard Mr. R.S. Sahni, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y.P. Narula, Sr. Advocate, learned Counsel for respondent, on the point of admission, and have gone through the impugned order as also copies of the documents placed on the file.