SATYA NARAIN AGGARWAL Vs. KAMLESH KUMARI
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SATYA NARAIN AGGARWAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This revision petition is directed against an order dated September 29,1993 passed by the learned Sub Judge whereby he rejected an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by the plaintiff/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner for the sake of convenience). The petitioner through the proposed amenment wanted to plead that the defendant/respondent ( hereinafter referred to as the respondent for the sake of brevity) has got no right to block the passage. He further wanted to explain through the amendment sought that he has got an un-interrupted right by way of easement to the light, Sun and the air. In case the respondent succeeds in raising the construction then he would be deprived of the light, Sun and the air. The petitioner further wanted to allege that the proposed construction is in violation of the bye-laws of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
(2.)The respondent opposed the said application on the ground that the petitionerthrough the proposed amendments wanted to introduce a new case and wanted to raise new pleas which were contradictory to and inconsistent with the pleas already raised by him. It has further been contended for and on behalf of the respondent that the proposed amendments are un-necessary and irrelevant and hence are liable to be rejected.
(3.)The learned lower court after hearing the parties was of the view that the amendments sought were un-necessary, irrelevant and immaterial as the petitioner had already raised the same in his plaint. The learned Sub Judge was further of the view that the petitioner wanted to introduce a new plea with regard to the easement which was never pleaded earlier. He is thus debarred from doing so. In view of the above the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.