SHANTI DEVI Vs. GANGA PERSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment and order I propose to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against the order dated 20.3.1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi allowing the application filed by the defendant under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendments in the written statement. The subject matter of the suit property is Shop No. 5414 opening on the Arya Sarnaj Raod, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The said shop, it is stated, belongs to Smt. Bhoori Devi, Dropdi and Ram Dulari. They preferred an eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act against the respondent herein in the Court of the Rent Controller, Delhi which was registered as Case No. 624/69 and Was decreed against the respondent under judgment and order dated 24.1.1970 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. It is stated in the prent revision petition that subsequent to the aforesaid judgment and decree the three landladies filed an execution petition pursuant to which they also received possession. It is, however, stated that subsequently the respondent again trespassed into the said shop No. 5414, Arya Sarnaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Accordingly Bhoori Devi, Dropdi and Ram Dulari filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction which is registered as Suit No. 318/81. In the said suit an injunction order was also passed restraining the defendant-respondent from demolishing or carrying out any structural change in the shop in question bearing No. 5414.

(2.) During the pendency of the aforesaid suit the said three landladies sold the property to the present petitioner vide Sale Deed dated 23.1.1982. After purchase of the aforesaid property by the present petitioner an application for substitution was preferred under Order 22, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was contested by the defendant-respondent. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court by order dated 5.12.1983 and consequently the name of the present petitioner was substituted as plaintiff.

(3.) In the said suit on the basis of the pleadings of the parties three issues were framed. After faming of the issues, the petitioner-plaintiff prodcued evidence and examined five witnesses in support of her case and the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 12.10.1998 and thereafter the case was fixed for evidence of the dffendant. The defendant also examined himself as his witness and he also concluded his evidence and thereafter the case was fixed for final arguments.