VIJAYA SHAKTI GUPTA Vs. RAKESH KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 07.07.2014 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kangra at Dharamshala in CMA No. 80/2014 in Civil Suit No. 451/13/2003 vide which, application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present petitioner/plaintiff for amendment of the suit stands dismissed. The petitioner has further prayed for direction to be issued to learned Court below to decide the application of the petitioner for possession of the premises as per the directions passed in Civil Suit No. 23 of 2003 as well as in LPA No. 9 of 2005 and order dated 27.08.2012 passed in CMPMO Nos. 470 of 2011 and 478 of 2011.

(2.) As per the petitioner, she filed a suit for possession of property known as (a) Whispering Winds Resorts; (b) New Whispering Hotel; and (c) Residential premises built on the land comprised in Khata No. 46/41, Khatauni No. 123, Khasra No. 391/308, measuring 0-15-36 hectares, situated in Mohal Kand, Mauja Khaniyara, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. alongwith other reliefs including a decree of Rs. 10,56,437.50/- on account of rent/use and occupation charges of the suit premises. The suit was initially filed in this Court, but was subsequently transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Kangra and thereafter to the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kangra at Dharamshala.

(3.) During the pendency of the case before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kangra, an application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the suit, i.e. CMA No. 80 of 2014 on the grounds that the suit was initially filed in the year 2003 and at that relevant time, plaintiff had presented the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 10,56,437.50/- and as more than 11 years had passed and the arrears of use and occupation charges have arisen to Rs. 35,18,624/-, as such the plaint was liable to be amended to the extent that the value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction was liable to be substituted alongwith other amendments, which are incorporated hereinbelow: