JYOTI WAZIR Vs. DEEPAK KHOSLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question with which this Court is confronted in the present judgment is whether the issues which were framed vide order dtd. 26/9/2011 covered the amended plaint or whether additional issues need to be framed, which if framed would require leading of additional evidence in respect thereof.

(2.) To find an answer to the above question, it is necessary to appreciate the background facts of the case.

(3.) The property bearing number 11, Prithvi Raj Road, New Delhi was owned by Late Sh. R.N. Khosla, who had two sons namely Sh. K.G. Khosla and Sh. J.C. Khosla. The contesting parties in the present suit for partition are the heirs of Late Sh. K.G. Khosla. The plaintiffs are the three daughters of Late Sh. K.G. Khosla, whereas the Defendant No.1 is his son. When the suit was originally filed, it was filed by the Plaintiff No.1 as the sole plaintiff. Subsequently, the two other daughters of Late Sh. K.G. Khosla, who had been originally arrayed as Defendant Nos.4 and 5, were transposed as Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 vide order dtd. 18/4/2006. Defendants No.2 and 3 are the sons of Defendant No.1. The Defendant No.4 (originally Defendant No.6) is the aforesaid Sh. J.C. Khosla.