DEEPAK BHATIA Vs. KOMAL BHATIA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the petitioner and the respondent had set up rival wills qua the suit property of their common predecessor-ininterest. The plaintiff/respondent herein (for short the "plaintiff") had initially in the plaint omitted to graphically display therein qua the property alienated to him under a testamentary disposition of his predecessor-in-interest standing comprised in 7 shops besides other residential accommodation. However the plaintiff by moving an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC sought leave of the Court to overcome the aforesaid defect qua the descriptions of the corpus of the property alienated to him under a testamentary disposition made in his favour by his predecessor-in-interest.

(2.) The application stood contested by the defendant/petitioner herein before the learned trial Court. However the learned trial Court had ordered for incorporation in the plaint of the apposite amendments manifested in paragraph 2 of the apposite application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC as stood preferred therebefore by the plaintiff.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant had made a vociferous address qua the factum of according of relief to the plaintiff/respondent herein by the learned trial Court whereby he stood permitted to incorporate in the plaint the afore-stated amendments being grossly astray from the enjoined tenets governing the exercise of jurisdiction by it while standing seized with an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC significantly with the plaintiff despite his holding knowledge qua the graphic descriptions of the corpus of the suit property his at the outset omitting to aver the apposite narrations qua it in the plaint whereupon he contends of his omissions aforesaid constituting an embargo against the plaintiff qua his belatedly asking for its standing added in the relevant paragraphs of the plaint. Moreso when he despite knowledge qua the aforesaid facet omitted at the outset to seek its incorporation in the plaint renders him amenable for his standing construed to be indiligent whereas only on evidence displaying qua despite his initially exercising due diligence, his apposite lack of concert thereat warranting its standing condoned by this Court besides giving leverage to him to belatedly seek its incorporation. He proceeds to contend of the application warranting dismissal also he contends of the impugned order meriting interference.