SURAJ BHAN Vs. RAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 5.2.2010 (wrongly mentioned in the head-note of petition as 5.2.2011) passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Gurgaon whereby the application for amendment of plaint moved by respondent-plaintiff has been allowed.

(2.) Brief facts for disposal of the instant petition are that when respondent-plaintiff changed his counsel and engaged Sh.S.K.Rao, Advocate, he was conveyed that the entire facts have not been reflected in the plaint. Therefore, the respondent-plaintiff filed application for appointment of local commission and replication disclosing true facts, however, injunction application of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of concealment of material facts. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rue 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint and sought permission of this Court to amend the plaint as under:

(3.) Prayer Clause Para No.10: That the plaintiff, therefore, humbly prays that a decree for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is lawful owner of the plot in dispute detailed in para no.1 of the plaint and shown in red and green colour in the site plan annexed with the amendment application; that defendant has got no right, interest or title in the suit property; that the agreement dated 15.3.2003 receipt, two general power of attorneys and will of even dates are illegal, null and void, without consideration and are the outcome of fraud and breach of trust on the part of the defendant. A decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the entire construction raised over the property shown in red and green colours in the site plan appended with the amendment application also deserves to be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. A decree for possession may also very kindly be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant directing the defendant to deliver vacant, physical and peaceful possession of the suit property described above free from illegal construction raised by the defendant during pendency of the suit. In case defendant succeeds to raise any further construction during pendency of suit, same may also be directed to be demolished. I n case defendant fails to remove the construction existing at the spot, in that event plaintiff may very kindly be permitted to remove the same at the cost and expenses of the defendant.