BHARAT RAJ SINGH Vs. DILEEP SANTHALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not chosen to appear in spite of valid service of notice upon them which is recorded in order dated 21.11.2017.

(2.) Anxiety of the petitioner who is defendant in Eviction Suit No. 20 of 2009 is, that by virtue of the impugned order dated 30.04.2016 the plaintiff no. 3 - a subsequent purchaser by filing an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C would transform the suit as the one for his own personal necessity.

(3.) Eviction Suit No. 20 of 2009 was instituted by Dileep Santhalia and his wife for ejection of the defendant from the suit schedule premises on the ground of personal necessity of plaintiff no.1. During pendency of the suit an application under Order I Rule 10(2) C.P.C was filed by Surya Commodities Pvt. Ltd. for its transposition as plaintiff in the eviction suit. Against the rejection of this application by an order dated 10.03.2011, Surya Commodities Pvt. Ltd. came to this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2243 of 2011. The writ petition stood allowed on 08.05.2015 holding that a valid title has accrued to Surya Commodities Pvt. Ltd. and therefore its addition in the pending proceeding is necessary. Consequently, Surya Commodities Pvt. Ltd. was transposed as plaintiff no.3 in Eviction Suit No. 20 of 2009. It filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C for amendment in the plaint. One of the amendments sought in the plaint is deletion of paragraph no.12 in which the original plaintiffs have pleaded personal necessity for plaintiff no.1, by substituting personal requirement for Surya Commodities Pvt. Ltd. plaintiff no.3. It reads :