The trial Court, after hearing the arguments, allowed the amendment application on 18.11.2004.
On 12.5.2004, the appellant herein filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of written statement and sought the permission of the Court to file a written agreement executed between the parties on 10.9.1982.
While so, on 12.05.2004, the defendant filed an application for amendment of written statement under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC.
The respondent herein plaintiff filed a suit No.
136 of 2005 whereby the High Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein.
The Civil Judge, based on the claim of both the parties, particularly accepting the explanation offered by the defendant allowed the said application and permitted the defendant to incorporate the proposed amendments in the written statement on payment of companyt of Rs.3,000/ .
13/20, Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi admeasuring 426 sq.
After the allotment, the plot was partitioned with the mutual companysent of the parties.
On going through the entire materials and details, namely, filing of the suit in the year 1986, the application for amendment of written statement filed only in 1994 and of the fact that numberhing has been stated in the written statement as well as in her evidence by the impugned order set aside the order of the trial Court and rejected the application filed by the defendant seeking to amend the written statement.
vide perpetual lease deed dated 12.05.1981.
1893 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.
136 of 2005 before the High Court of Delhi.
Written statement was filed and the witnesses were examined.
Even after his death in the year 1998, the petition was filed only in 2004.
The said application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing an objection.
Questioning the said order, the plaintiff has filed a C.M. Main No.
Heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior companynsel appearing for the respondent.
136 of 2005 before the High Court of Delhi.
Both the parties were in use and occupation of their respective portions of the property after the respective companystruction.
Against that order, the respondent herein filed a M. Main No.
The front portion was allotted to the appellant and the back portion was allotted to the respondent.
Since the said agreement is material one and has a bearing on the dispute between the parties and the execution of the same is admitted by the plaintiff, her application may be allowed by permitting the defendant to raise the plea of the agreement dated 10.09.1982 is her written statement and mark the same as a document of the defendant.
The respondent also started raising the companystruction on the back portion and companypleted the same in the year 1985.
Only her another son, namely, Navneet Agrawal searched the papers documents of his brother Sunit Gupta and located an agreement dated 10.09.1982.
In the year 1986, the respondent herein filed a suit for mandatory injunction being Suit No.
261 of 1986 alleging that the drive way, which is 10 wide from gate facing 30 road upto the road facing 15 vide service lane at the back, has been encroached upon by the appellant and the appellant is number permitting him to use the drive way.
In the same prayer, the plaintiff has prayed that the defendant may further be directed number to obstruct the plaintiff, his family members or relations from using the companymon drive way from point Y to Z in the site plan.
The main reason for seeking the amendment in the written statement is that the defendant is the house wife and earlier was assisted by his son, namely, Sunit Gupta, who was a Chartered Accountant.
Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court, the defendant has filed the above appeal by way of special leave.
New Delhi and also number to put the lock at main gate of the property.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The explanation offered by the defendant cannot be accepted since she did number mention anything when she was examined as witness.
6892 OF 2007 Sathasivam, J. Leave granted.
The appellant raised companystruction in the year 1983 and companypleted the same in the year 1984.
261 of 1986 on the file of Senior Sub Judge, Delhi praying a decree for mandatory injunction against the defendant appellant herein to remove all obstructions at point X and lock at point Y in the site plan of the property No.
The said suit was filed on 23.05.1986, the defendant filed a written statement even in the year 1986 itself.
The respondent herein filed a reply to the application denying the execution of the agreement and claimed that the same is forged and fabricated document.
By order dated 22.11.2006, the High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order passed by the trial Court on 18.11.2004 in the amendment application.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.11.2006 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in C.M. Main No.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred the present appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
13/20, Punjabi Bagh Extn.
Brief facts The appellant and the respondent, being members of Adarsh Bhawan House Building Cooperative Society, Delhi were jointly allotted a plot bearing No.
