MANAS MANDIR Vs. SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR RAKHEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.05.2014 vide which the application filed by him under Sec. under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC seeking an amendment in his eviction had been dismissed. He is aggrieved by this finding.

(2.) Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by the petitioner/landlord under Sec. 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). The petitioner has been described 'Manas Mandir'. The sole defendant was the tenant namely Sudhir Kumar Rakheja. In the course of the proceedings, the present application came to be filed. Averments made in the present application have been perused. Contention is that certain amendments are sought to be made in the eviction petition as also the rejoinder, verification and supporting affidavits filed by the petitioner which had been filed through its two trustees (namely K.V. Khandelwal and Devender Kumar Kainth). The said trustees had been authorised by Resolution (dated 06.04.2009) of the Trust to file the eviction petition. Their affidavits in support of the petition clearly described trustees as the trustees of the Vishwa Bharti Ved Ashram Trust. The proposed amendments seek to place on record petitions, rejoinders, verification and supporting affidavits which would bear the signature of Jai Narain Khandelwal who is the Vice-Chairman of Vishwa Bharti Ved Ashram Trust which at the time of the filing of the first petition was inadvertently and due to a bona fide error left out. Submission is that admittedly the Vice-Chairman of the Trust is Jai Narain Khandelwal and the proposed amendments, if permitted, would only be to the effect that the amended petition, rejoinder, verification and the supporting affidavits already signed by the earlier two trustees (namely K.V.Khandelwal and Devender Kumar Kainth) would now also bear the signatures of the Vice-Chairman of the Trust. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has placed reliance upon (2006) 1 SCC 75, Uday Shankar Triyar Vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and Another , (2006) 6 SCC 498, Baldev Singh & Others Vs. Manohar Singh and Another as also (2003) 6 SCC 675, Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram chander Rai and Others . Contention is that the defects in signing or the authority of person signing pleadings is a handmaid of justice which is only a procedural formality; law of amendment which is a liberal law must be appreciated in the correct perspective.

(3.) Reply had been filed to the afore noted application. It was denied that these are only bona fide errors and mistakes. Contention in the reply was that these defects would amount to filling life into a dead horse. The nature of the case would change.