IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI.

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

I.A. NO. _____ OF 20**.

IN

C.S. (OS) NO.*** OF 20**.

IN THE MATTER OF :-

XXXXX                                                        : PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

XXXXX                                                        : DEFENDANT

REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT TO THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 OF CPC FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :-

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS :-

1.       That the application of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint is highly belated.

2.       That the present application has been filed by the plaintiff after the commencement of trial in this case. The case is already at the stage of plaintiff evidence. The plaintiff has not been able to point out any reason as to why said application could not be filed earlier. In terms of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. It is submitted that the application is absolutely without merit and it has not disclosed any reason as to why the plaintiff could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

3.       It is settled principle of law that in a suit for partition of the property, as in the present case, the jurisdictional value has to be determined on the value of the whole of the property in accordance with the provisions of R.8 of Chapter 3-C of Punjab High Court Rules and Orders, Volume 1, framed by the High Court under the powers conferred by the S. 9 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887.

4.       That the application of the plaintiff is full of lies and the reason for making the application is also untrue, false, baseless and an afterthought.

REPLY ON MERITS :-

1.       That the contents of para 1 of the application is matter of record, hence need no reply.

2.       That the contents of para 2 of the application are matter of record.

3.       That the contents of para 3 of the application are matter of record.

4.       That the contents of para 4 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that after the demise of their mother, the Plaintiff and Defendant No. l became an owner of the Property bearing No. XXXXX, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi by virtue of will dated 05.07.1994.

5.       That the contents of para 4 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the above enumerated circumstance, the Plaintiff wants to add necessary facts and amend the prayer clause in the said suit. There is no basis of filing the present application.

6.       That the contents of para 5 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that there is no intentional delay in moving the present application however the amendment is on account of inadvertence and the same is not intentional.

7.       That the contents of para 7 of the application are wrong and denied. It is denied that the present amendment is not going to change the nature of the suit in any manner and is filed as per the order given by this Hon’ble Court. It is a false amendment made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has otherwise also no right, title or interest in the suit property. The proposed amendment sought by the plaintiff in the prayer clause is a complete afterthought.

Prayer clause of the application is denied and plaintiff is not entitled to relief claimed for.

That the application is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. It is prayed that it be dismissed with costs.

Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

DEFENDANT

THROUGH

Place: New Delhi  

Dated: -                                     

COUNSEL