ANITA Vs. RITA KAPADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these two revision petitions, the petitioners therein have impugned the same order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sohna, on January 12, 2017, vide which the application filed by the respondent plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, has been allowed, thereby allowing the plaintiff to amend her plaint. The single petitioner in CR no.1570 of 2017 and the two petitioners in CR no.1596 of 2017, are all defendants in the said suit, with the petitioner in CR no.1570 of 2017 having been impleaded as such subsequently, upon an application filed by her under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC (on January 10, 2015), on the ground that she was a subsequent purchaser of the suit property.

(2.) The history of the suit property, as given by the petitioner in CR no.1570 of 2017, is that the sale deed on the strength of which (proforma) respondents no.2 and 3 in the said petition (petitioners in CR no.1596 of 2017), purchased the property, was contended by the plaintiff (respondent no.1 in both petitions) to be a fraudulently executed one, of which she was actually not the executant (being the owner of the suit property), and therefore the subsequent sales made by respondents no.2 and 3 in favour of respondents no.7 and 8 herein, were also not binding on respondent no.1, i.e. the plaintiff. The petitioner in CR no.1570 of 2017 claims to have purchased the suit property from one Karamwati, who had in turn purchased it from respondents no.7 and 8.

(3.) Be that as it may, nothing further is being stated on the merits of all contentions raised before the trial court, with the suit obviously still to be adjudicated upon by that court, upon evidence led before it. What is pertinent to now notice, after seeing the aforesaid background of the lis given by the petitioner in CR no.1570 of 2017, is that in the original plaint filed by respondent no.1 herein, she had sought a decree of declaration of ownership of the suit land, also further seeking decrees of perpetual and mandatory injunction, the former relief being to the extent of restraining the defendants from entering into any further transaction qua the suit property and the latter being a direction to pay damages to the plaintiff for the loss suffered by her, and to also bear the costs of all proceedings initiated by her against them, alongwith the interest pendente lite, till realisation of the damages. She had also sought that the sale deed dated 13.10.2005, bearing Vasika no.3948/2005, registered in the office of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Sohna, be cancelled. The said suit was filed on July 23, 2007, with the application for amendment of the plaint having been filed on May 30, 2015. Vide the said application (copy Annexure P-6), the respondent- plaintiff sought to also incorporate a prayer seeking the relief of possession of the suit property after paying the requisite court fee (ad valorem). It was contended in paragraph 4 of the application that the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction was instituted on the ground that the plaintiff was in absolute possession of the suit land, and therefore the defendants had no right, title or interest in the same. In the same paragraph itself it is stated that the prayer already made, in effect is one seeking title and possession of the suit property, and therefore it would be in the interest of justice if the plaintiff was permitted to amend the suit to be one seeking vacant possession of the suit land, instead of the relief of mandatory injunction.