Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1435 (PNJ)

Kamal Singh v. Raitani Buildcom Pvt. Ltd.

2017-07-17

ANIL KSHETARPAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. 1. Defendant No.1 has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging order dated 24.04.2017 (Annexure P-8), passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gurugram, while allowing applications under Order 6 Rule 17 of the code of Civil Procedure and under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell, dated 04.06.2004, entered into by defendants no.1 and 2. It was pleaded that after receiving the entire sale consideration, defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed. It was further pleaded that defendant no.2-Nihal Singh transferred some property out of the disputed land in favour of his sons Giriraj, Prem Chand (sons of Nihal Singh) and grand son Mohit. It was further pleaded that on the basis of the release deed executed by Nihal Singh, Giri Raj further sold the suit land to Smt. Anita and Smt. Hem Lata. It was further mentioned that Anita and Hem Lata have executed sale deeds in favour of large number of persons, which are detailed in paragraph 5 of the application. Similarly Kamal Singh, defendant no.1 also transferred some land in favour of one Ved Singh by way of civil court decree and Ved Singh further transferred the land in favour of one Anil, who further sold the land in favour of Smt. Murti and Smt. Lila. 3. Plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17, seeking amendment of the plaint with a view to incorporate the following paragraphs in the plaint:- “11A. 3. Plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17, seeking amendment of the plaint with a view to incorporate the following paragraphs in the plaint:- “11A. That the defendants never disputed their ownership regarding suit land at any point of time nor put any questions to any of the witnesses of the plaintiff during the course of recording of the evidence of the plaintiff and when the case was fixed for production of documents on behalf of the plaintiff then after obtaining the documents in the 3rd week of December 2016, it was transpired that the defendant No.2 Nihal Singh illegally and unauthorisedly in collusion with his sons and grandsons executed a totally false and frivolous release deed vasika No. 3305 dated 08.09.2005 in favour of his sons Giriraj, Prem Chand sons of Nihal and Grandson Mohit son of Late Pursotam son of Nihal regarding his land measuring 30 kanal 4 maria stated above situated in the revenue estate of Village Kadarpur Tehsil Sohna District Gurgaon and also managed to get sanctioned an illegal and unauthorized mutation No. 1881 dated 20.12.2005 on the basis of said false and bogus release deed vaiska No. 3305 dated 08.09.2005. 11B. That it was also transpired that Giriraj son of Nihal Singh on the basis of said alleged release deed and alleged mutation illegally and unauthorisedly executed an illegal sale deed vasika No. 5394 dated 22.01.2010 qua 1/3rd share measuring 10 kanal 1 marla of land measuring 30 kanal 4 marla of land bearing khewat No. 65 khata No. 68 Rect. No. 28 Kila No. 22(8-0) measuring 8 kanal, land bearing Khewat No. 266 Khata No. 342 Rect. No. 28 Killa No.23/1(4-16), Rect. No. 33 Killa No. 2(8-0), 9(8-0) measuring 20 kanal 16 marla, 28/308 share in land bearing khewat No. 305 Khata No. 384 Rect. No. 28 Kila No. 22(8-0) measuring 8 kanal, land bearing Khewat No. 266 Khata No. 342 Rect. No. 28 Killa No.23/1(4-16), Rect. No. 33 Killa No. 2(8-0), 9(8-0) measuring 20 kanal 16 marla, 28/308 share in land bearing khewat No. 305 Khata No. 384 Rect. No. 33 Killa No.7(7-8), 8(8-0) measuring 15 kanal 8 marla to the extent of 28/308 share measuring 1 kanal 8 marla total measuring 30 kanal 4 marla in favour of Smt. Anita wife of Sujeet son of Sarup Chand and Smt. Hemlata wife of Satish son of Sarup Chand both residents of Village Badhshahpur Tehsil & District Gurgaon to the extent of 115/576 share and 77/576 share respectively in land measuring 28 kanal 16 marla and to the extent of 5/308 share and 4/308 share in land measuring 15 kanal 8 marla for some fictitious sale consideration without any right to do so during the pendency of the suit and alleged mutation No.2407 dated 22.01.2010 was also got sanctioned on the basis of same. 11C. That from the documents it also came to the notice of the plaintiff that Smt. Anita wife of Sujeet son of Sarup Chand and Smt. Hemlata wife of Satish son of Sarup Chand stated above out of the land measuring 10 kanal 1 marla stated above, further executed and got registered Sale deed vasika No. 5765 dated 05.02.2010 executed by Smt. Anita in favour of Smt. Archana Mukherji wife of Dr. D.Mukherji resident of C-401, Amarpali Exotica Apartments, Sector-50, Noida(UP) to the extent of 506 sq. yards i.e. 0 kanal 16 marla 7 sarsai followed by Mutation No. 2574 dated 13.08.2010, Sale deed vasika No. 5766 dated 05.02.2010 executed by Smt. Anita in favour of Smt. Menakshi V N wife of Mr. Ranganathan E.S resident of 90, Duplex-II, Rajat Vihar, Sector-62, Noida (UP) to the extent of 506 sq. yards i.e. 0 kanal 16 marla 7 sarsai followed by Mutation No.2570 dated 13.08.2010 dated 13.08.2010, Sale deed vasika No. 5767 dated 05.02.2010 executed by Smt. Anita in favour of Smt. Beena Salim Saji wife of Mr. Salim A.G, Nessis resident of House No. 48, M S P Nagar, Thirumala, Trivandum (Kerala) to the extent of 506 sq. yards i.e. 0 kanal 16 marla 7 sarsai followed by Mutation No.2572 dated 13.08.2010, Sale deed vasika No. 5768 dated 05.02.2010 executed by Smt. Anita in favour of Mr. Salim A.G, Nessis resident of House No. 48, M S P Nagar, Thirumala, Trivandum (Kerala) to the extent of 506 sq. yards i.e. 0 kanal 16 marla 7 sarsai followed by Mutation No.2572 dated 13.08.2010, Sale deed vasika No. 5768 dated 05.02.2010 executed by Smt. Anita in favour of Mr. Raghunathan A.P.V son of Mr. Chandukutti T.K resident of Edayathra Vallapil House, Edoor, Post Office, Kadachira, District Kannur, Kerala to the extent of 506 sq. yards i.e. 0 kanal 16 marla 7 sarsai followed by Mutation No.2571 dated 13.08.2010, Sale deed vasika No. 5769 dated 05.02.2010 executed by Smt. Anita in favour of Smt. Sajitha P.J wife of Mr. Suresh K.V. resident of Kottapurath House, 178/38, Karshaka road, Kochi, Kerala to the extent of 506 sq. yards i.e. 0 kanal 16 marla 7 sarsai followed by Mutation No.2576 dated 13.08.2010, Sale deed vasika No. 5770 dated 05.02.2010 executed by Smt. Anita in favour of Mr. Radhakrishnan M. son of Sh. Raman M, Chandrankandiyil, resident of Iramala, P.0 Badagara to the extent of 506 sq. yards i.e. 0 kanal 16 marla 7 sarsai followed by Mutation No.2573 dated 13.08.2010, Sale deed vasika No. 5771 dated 05.02.2010 executed by Smt. Anita in favour of Mr. Jayaprakash P.K son of Sh. P.T.K Govindan resident of Kutti Kurup Pullanholithazhakuniyil Post Office Kunnummakkaram, Cholmabala VIA District Kozhikode, Kerala to the extent of 506 sq. yards i.e. 0 kanal 16 marla 7 sarsai followed by Mutation No. 2575 dated 13.08.2010 and Sale deed vasika No. 5772 dated 05.02.2010 executed by Smt. Hemlata in favour of Smt. Ayesha Nair wife of Sh. N.R Nair resident of B-104, G.F, Mayfield Garden Sector-50, Gurgaon to the extent of 506 sq. yards i.e. 0 kanal 16 marla 7 sarsai followed by Mutation no. 2577 dated 13.08.2010. 11D. That it also transpired from the documents that Kamal Singh defendant No.1 had suffered some illegal, unwarranted, false and frivolous consent decree in respect of the land measuring 1 kanal 7 marla i.e. 27/308 share out of the said land bearing Khewat No. 305 Khata No.384, Rect. 2577 dated 13.08.2010. 11D. That it also transpired from the documents that Kamal Singh defendant No.1 had suffered some illegal, unwarranted, false and frivolous consent decree in respect of the land measuring 1 kanal 7 marla i.e. 27/308 share out of the said land bearing Khewat No. 305 Khata No.384, Rect. No.33, Killa No 7(7-8), 8(8-0), measuring 15 kanal 8 marla situated within the revenue estate of Village Kadarpur Tehsil Sohna District Gurgaon, illegally and unauthorisedly affecting the rights of the plaintiff in the present suit to the extent 27/308 share land measuring 1 kanal 7 marla in favour of one Ved Singh son of Shiv Narain resident of house No. 13 Kherki Dabur, New Delhi in case titled "Ved Singh Vs Kamal Singh" decided on 26.10.2012 by the court of the Amender Singh Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Gurgaon in case No. 172 of 26.03.2007/26.07.2007 as per mutation No. 3184 dated 05.12.2012, secretly on the back of the plaintiff and without any notice and knowledge of the plaintiff in any manner during the pendency of the suit and the said decree is totally illegal, unauthorized, null, void having no effect upon the legal rights of the plaintiff. 11E. That it was further transpired that on the basis of illegal and unauthorized mutation No.3184 dated 05.12.2012 and alleged civil court decree, Sh. Ved Singh son of Shiv Narain arranged to get sanctioned a mutation No.3193 dated 20.12.2012 qua 27/308 share measuring 1 kanal 7 marla beside some other land not in suit, in favour of Anil Kumar son of Munshi Ram Resident of Villiage Kadarpur Tehsil Sohna District Gurgaon vide mutation No.3193 shown to be sanctioned on 20.12.2012 illegally and unauzhorisedly without any notice or knowledge of the plaintiff on his back. The said mutation No.3193 is also totally illegal, null, void having no effect upon the legal rights of the plaintiff. 11F. That from further inspection of the documents the plaintiff also came to know that Anil son of Mushi Ram stated above sold away the land measuring 1 kanal 7 marla i.e. 27/308 share of land Khewat No. 305 Khata No.384, Rect. 11F. That from further inspection of the documents the plaintiff also came to know that Anil son of Mushi Ram stated above sold away the land measuring 1 kanal 7 marla i.e. 27/308 share of land Khewat No. 305 Khata No.384, Rect. No.33, Killa to 7(7-8), 8(8-0), measuring 15 kanal 8 marla besides some other land which is not part of suit land, in favour of Smt. Murti Devi wife of Sarup Chand son of Chotte and Smt. Leela wife of Baljeet son of Hukum Singh in equal shares both residents of Village Kadarpur Tehsil Sohna District Gurgaon as per the registered sale deed vasika no. 5817 dated 19.12.2012 illegally and unauthorisedly by showing some fictitious sale consideration without any notice or knowledge of the plaintiff and also managed to get sanctioned the mutation No. 3195 dated 20.12.2012 on the basis of same. 11G. That all the aforesaid transactions i.e. the release deed vasika No. 3305 dated 08.09.2005, mutation No.1881. Dated 20.12.2005, further sale deed vasika No. 5394 dated 22.01.2010, mutation No.2407 dated 22.01.2010 and further sale deeds bearing vasika No.5765 to 5772 all dated 05.02.2010 with mutations No.2574, 2570, 2572, 2571, 2576, 2573, 2575, 2577 all dated 13.08.2010 and the alleged decree in case No.172 of 26.03.2007/26.07.2007 dated 26.10.2012 in civil suit titled "Ved Singh Vs Kamal Singh" passed by the court of Sh. Aman Inder Singh Civil Judge Gurgaon as per mutation No.3184 dated 05.12.2012 and subsequent mutation no. 3193 dated 20.12.2012 and sale deed vasika No.5817 dated 19.12.2012 and mutation No.3195 dated 20.12.2012 stated above are totally illegal, null, void, without any notice and knowledge of the plaintiff, created secretly on its back to create illegal and unwarranted hurdle in passing a decree for possession by specific performance of the sale agreement qua the suit land in favour of plaintiff after sale agreement dated 04.06.2004 and also during the pendency of the suit and the same are liable to be ignored having no effect upon the rights of the plaintiff to seek a decree for possession by specific performance of the sale agreement dated 04.06.2004 in respect of the suit land measuring 46 kanal. All the above person are bound by the sale agreement dated 04.06.2004 and they are liable to be directed to join the defendant Kamal Sinah in execution and registration of the sale deed in favour of plaintiff in terms of the decree of possession by specific performance to be passed by this Hon'ble court in respect of the suit land measuring 46 kanal stated above. ii. That para No.12 of the plaint is liable to be amended as under:- 12. That cause of action for filing the present suit firstly arose when the defendant send notice dated 30.11.2005 and thereafter cause of action arose expiry of period of notice dated 25.11.2006. The cause of action for filing the present suit arose against the defendants No.3 to19 during the pendency of the suit when the plaintiff came to know about the illegal and unwarranted transfer of the part of the suit property as stated above. iii. That para No.16 of the plaint i.e. the prayer clause is liable to be amended in the following manner:- 16. That the plaintiff therefore pray that a decree for possession by specific performance of the sale agreement dated 04.06.2004 may kindly be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants directing them to execute and get registered the sale deed in respect of the land measuring 46 kanai i.e. land bearing Khewat No. 305 Khata No.384, Rect. No.33, Killa No 7(7-8), 8(8-0), measuring 15 kanal 8 marla to the extent of 6/7 share measuring 13 kanal 4 marla, land bearing khewat No. 152 Khata no. 176, Rect. No.36 Killa No. 11/2(5-4), 12/1 (2-5), 11/1(2-16), Rect. No. 43 Killa No. 5(8-0), 6/1(0- 16), 6/3(5-8), 15/3(4-14), Khasra No. 287(0-2), 288(0- 2), 289(0-2), measuring 29 kanal 9 marla, Khata No. 177 Rect. No. 36 Killa No. 20(7-12, 21/1(0-17), measuring 8 kanal 9 marla total measuring 37 kanal 18 marla to the extent of 1/30 share measuring 1 kanal 5 marla, land bearing khewat No. 153 khata No. 178 Rect. No.43 Killa No. 6/2(1-16) measuring 1 kanal 16 marla to the extent 1/30 share measuring 1 marla, land bearing Khewat No. 158 Khata No. 183 Rect. No. 28 Killa No. 20/1(4-4) measuring 4 kanal 4 marla to the extent of 1/50 share measuring 2 marla, land bearing khewat No. 162 Khata No. 187 Rect. No. 28 Killa No. 21/2(6- 13), 16 (8-0), 25(8-0), Rect. No. 28 Killa No. 20/1(4-4) measuring 4 kanal 4 marla to the extent of 1/50 share measuring 2 marla, land bearing khewat No. 162 Khata No. 187 Rect. No. 28 Killa No. 21/2(6- 13), 16 (8-0), 25(8-0), Rect. No. 32 Kila No. 5/1(6-9), Rect. No. 33 Killa No. 1/1(1-16), Rect. No. 43 Killa No. 8(8-0), 13/2 (5-10), 14(7-11), 15/1(1-3) measuring 53 kanal 2 marla to the extent of 1/50 share measuring 1 kanal 1 marla, land bearing khewat No. 161 Khata no. 186 Rect. Nc.43 Killa No.7(8-0), measuring 8 kanal to the extent of 1/50 share measuring 3 marla, total land measuring 15 kanal 16 marla and land bearing khewat No. 65 khata No. 68 Rect. No. 28 Kila No. 22(8-0) measuring 8 kanal, land bearing Khewat No. 266 Khata No. 342 Rect. No. 28 Killa No.23/1(4-16), Rect. No. 33 Kila No. 2(8-0), 9 (8-0) measuring 20 kanal 16 marla, 28/308 share in land bearing khewat No. 305 Khata No. 384 Rect. No. 33 Killa No. 7(7-8), 8(8-0) measuring 15 kanal 8 marla to the extent of 27/308 share measuring 1 kanal 8 marla measuring 30 kanal 4 marla, total measuring 46 kanal situated within revenue estate of Village Kadarpur Tehsil Sohna District Gurgaon on total sale consideration already paid or ordered to be paid and on stamp and registration charges to be borne by the plaintiff. Further directing the defendants to deliver the physical and vacant possession of the said land to the plaintiff with cost of the suit and the release deed vasika No. 3305 dated 08.J9.2005, mutation No.1881 dated 20.12.2005, further sale deed vasika No. 5394 dated 22.01.2010, mutation No.2407 dated 22.01.2010 and further sale deeds bearing vasika No 5765 to 5772 all dated 05.02.2010 with mutations No.2574, 2570, 2572, 2571, 2576, 2573, 2575, 2577 all dated 13.08.2010 and the alleged decree in case No.172 of 26.03.2007/26.07.2007 dated 26.10.2012 in civil suit titled "Ved Singh Vs Kemal Singh" passed by the court of Sh. Aman Inder Singh Civil Judge Gurgaon and mutation No.3184 dated 05.12.2012 and subsequent mutation no. Aman Inder Singh Civil Judge Gurgaon and mutation No.3184 dated 05.12.2012 and subsequent mutation no. 3193 dated 20.12.2012 and sale deed vasika No.5817 dated 19.12.2012 and mutation No.3195 dated 20.12.2012 stated above are totally illegal, null, void and the same are liable to be ignored having no effect upon the rights of the plaintiff to seek a decree for possession by specific performance of the sale agreement dated 01.06.2004 in respect of the suit land and the defendants No.3 to 19 are liable to join the sale deed to be executed and registered by the defendant No.1 and legal heirs of defendant No.2 in favour of plaintiff in terms of decree passed by this Hon'ble court. In the alternative, if the Hon'ble court for reasons to be recorded, comes to the conclusion that a decree for possession by specific performance of sale agreement dated 04.06.2004 qua 27/308 share i.e. 1 kanal 7 marla out of the suit land bearing Khewat No. 305 Khata no. 384 Rect. No.33, Killa No 7 (78), 8(8-0), measuring 15 kanal 8 marla situated within the revenue estate of Village Kadarpur Tehsil Sohna District Gurgaon cannot be passed by the Hon'ble court then a decree for possession by specific performance of the remaining area measuring 44 kanal 13 marla i.e. the suit land land bearing Khewat No. 305 Khata No. 384, Rect. No.33, Killa No 7(7-8), 8(8-0), measuring 15 kanal 8 marla to the extent of 237/308 share measuring 11 kanal 17 marla, land bearing khewat No. 152 Khata no. 176, Rect. No.36 Killa No. 11/2(5-4), 12/1(2-5), 11/1(2-16), Rect. No. 43 Killa No. 5(8-0), 6/1(0-16), 6/3(5-8), 15/3(4-14), Khasra No. 287(0-2), 288(0-2), 289(0-2), measuring 29 kanal 9 marla, Khata No. 177 Rect. No. 36 Killa No. 20 (7-12, 21/1(0-17), measuring 8 kanal 9 marla total measuring 37 kanal 18 marla to the extent of 1/30 share measuring 1 kanal 5 marla, land bearing khewat No. 153 khata No. 178 Rect. No.43 Killa No. 6/2(1-16) measuring 1. kanal 16 marla to the extent 1/30 share measuring 1 marla, land bearing Khewat No. 158 Khata No. 183 Rect. No. 28 Killa No. 20/1(4-4) measuring 4 kanal 4 marla to the extent of 1/50 share measuring 2 marla, land bearing khewat No. 162 Khata No. 187 Rect. No. 28 Killa No. 21/2(6-13), 16(8-0), 25(8-0), Rect. No. 32 Kila No. 5/1(6-9), Rect. No. 33 Killa No. 1/1(1-16), Rect. No. 28 Killa No. 20/1(4-4) measuring 4 kanal 4 marla to the extent of 1/50 share measuring 2 marla, land bearing khewat No. 162 Khata No. 187 Rect. No. 28 Killa No. 21/2(6-13), 16(8-0), 25(8-0), Rect. No. 32 Kila No. 5/1(6-9), Rect. No. 33 Killa No. 1/1(1-16), Rect. No. 43 Killa No. 8(8-0), 13/2 (5-10), 14(7-11), 15/1(1-3) measuring 53 kanal 2 marla to the extent of 1/50 share measuring 1 kanal 1 marla, land bearing khewat No. 161 Khata no, 186 Rect. No.43 Killa No.7(8-0), measuring 8 kanal to the extent of 1/50 share measuring 3 marla, total land measuring 15 kanal 16 marla and land bearing khewat No. 65 khata No. 68 Rect. No. 28 Kila No. 22(8-0) measuring 8 kanal, land bearing Khewat No. 266 Khata No. 342 Rect. No. 28 Killa No.23/1(4-16), Rect. No. 33 Kila No. 2(8-0), 9(8-0) measuring 20 kanal 16 marla, 28/308 share in land bearing khewat No. 305 Khata No. 384 Rect. No. 33 Killa No. 7(7-8), 8(8-0) measuring 15 kanal 8 marla to the extent of 28/308 share measuring 1 kanal 8 marla measuring 30 kanal 4 marla, total measuring 44 kanal 13 marla situated within revenue estate of Village Kadarpur Tehsil Sohna District Gurgaon is liable to be passed in favour of plaintiff on payment of the total sale consideration already paid or on any such amount ordered to be paid by the court, is liable to be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants with costs of the suit. Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper may also be granted to the plaintiff.” 4. A separate application was moved by the plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adding the subsequent transferees as party-defendant to the suit. 5. Learned trial Court after appreciating the facts as pleaded in the application and after considering the reply filed by the defendant, allowed the application, subject to rider/limitation as observed under:- “However, simultaneously, this Court cannot ignore the fact that case pertains to the year 2006 and order allowing these applications at this stage would certainly cause inconvenience. For that matter, the defendants can be compensated with costs of Rs.3000/- to be paid by the plaintiff. For that matter, the defendants can be compensated with costs of Rs.3000/- to be paid by the plaintiff. Furthermore, plaintiff would not be allowed to lead any affirmative evidence to prove his agreement to sell dated 04.06.2004 as he has already concluded his oral evidence and consumed many years. Moreover, the purpose of proposed amendment is to avoid multiple litigations and to bring an actual climax to the case and same could be served by the appearance of transferees as defendants. Even otherwise, the rights of the plaintiff are still protected as he can file replication, if any and cross-examine the witnesses of defendants and lead evidence in rebuttal.” 6. Defendant no.1 has challenged the aforesaid order and it has been contended before me that the application for amendment was moved after the trial had started and the suit was filed in the year 2007, whereas the applications were filed in 2017. 7. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 8. No doubt, in this case the trial had started. But one thing must be remembered that the suit was filed in the year 2007. Most of the transfers were made during the pendency of the suit. These facts could not be in the knowledge of the plaintiff. Defendants kept on dealing with the property inspite of the fact that suit was pending against them. Plaintiff only wanted that in case his suit is decreed, he is able to execute the decree. Once the application has been allowed and subsequent transferees allowed to be impleaded, the subsequent transferees would get an opportunity to defend transfers in their favour. 9. Second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the application filed by the plaintiff suffers from delay and latches. It has further been pleaded that since the trial had started, therefore, the application could not have been allowed. 10. I have considered the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner. Commencement of trial is a fact. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, even after the commencement of the trial, the amendment can be allowed to do substantial justice between the parties. As noticed above, the defendants kept on dealing with the land and kept on transferring the property one after another during the pendency of the trial. Commencement of trial is a fact. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, even after the commencement of the trial, the amendment can be allowed to do substantial justice between the parties. As noticed above, the defendants kept on dealing with the land and kept on transferring the property one after another during the pendency of the trial. In these circumstances, defendant cannot be permitted to raise an argument that since the trial has commenced, amendment should not be allowed. 11. Second argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is delay in moving the applications. No doubt, there is some delay in moving the applications. However, keeping in view the fact that repeatedly the property was being transferred and earlier during the pendency of the suit this fact was not disclosed to the court, therefore, plaintiff moved an applications by pleading that plaintiff has come to know of the aforesaid transfers recently. The learned trial Court has rightly allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure as also application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 12. I do not find any ground to interfere with the order 24.04.2017 (Annexure P-8), passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram. Hence, the petition is ordered to be dismissed.