Rajesh Kumar Sachdeva Vs. M/S Super Bakery - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1127202
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnFeb-11-2014
AppellantRajesh Kumar Sachdeva
RespondentM/S Super Bakery
Excerpt:
cr no.1060 of 2014 -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh cr no.1060 of 2014 date of decision: 11.02.2014 rajesh kumar sachdeva ....petitioner versus m/s super bakery ....respondent coram:- hon'ble mr.justice rajiv narain raina present: mr.sanjay vij, advocate, for the petitioner. 1. to be referred to the reporters or not?. 2. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. rajiv narain raina, j.(oral) mr.sanjay vij, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that when this court, on a concession of parties permitted mrs.leelawanti wadhwa proprietor of m/s super bakery to be considered as the landlady then it gave a corresponding right to the petitioner to legitimately pray for impleading m/s super bakery through mrs.leelawanti wadhwa to maintain the suit for eviction of the defendant/respondent bakery after serving notice under section 106 of the transfer of property act, 1882 determining the tenancy. such a simple request for straightening the record has been declined by the trial court. the request for amendment of pleadings sought by the petitioner before the trial court under order 6 rule 17 cpc, in order to incorporate by amendment the true identity of the tenant defendant, is based on such a rudimentary prayer that it disturbs me as to why such a request was declined by the trial court compelling the petitioner to approach this court to waste mittal manju 2014.02.18 10:12 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh cr no.1060 of 2014 -2- its precious time in passing this order on such a trivial but vital issue thereby causing unwarranted expense on the petitioner which could easily have been avoided had the trial court applied its mind before passing the impugned order. furthermore, when seen in the light of the order passed by this court in cr no.1206 of 2010 (p-2) on 29th august, 2011 read with the consequential order dated 15th february, 2012 passed in cm no.2492-cii of 2012 praying for correction in the memo of parties to the extent that the concession given inadvertently recorded in the high court order was not attributable to the petitioner but infact to the tenant respondent, then by the present order the same is clarified accordingly to leave no ambiguity. the tenant gave the concession before this court in the said revision petition and not the landlord. this court is of opinion that for such correction no notice is required to be issued to the respondents and this petition eminently deserves to be allowed at the threshold. resultantly, the impugned order dated 06th january, 2014 passed by the civil judge (junior division).gurgaon is set aside. the application under order 6 rule 17, cpc is allowed. the registry of the court at gurgaon is directed to carry out the correction of the judicial file in the memo of parties. thereafter, suit to proceed in accordance with law. (rajiv narain raina) judge1102.2014 manju mittal manju 2014.02.18 10:12 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Judgment:

CR No.1060 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1060 of 2014 Date of Decision: 11.02.2014 Rajesh Kumar Sachdeva ....Petitioner Versus M/s Super Bakery ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr.Sanjay Vij, Advocate, for the petitioner.

1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?.

2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.(Oral) Mr.Sanjay Vij, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that when this Court, on a concession of parties permitted MRS.Leelawanti Wadhwa proprietor of M/s Super Bakery to be considered as the landlady then it gave a corresponding right to the petitioner to legitimately pray for impleading M/s Super Bakery through MRS.Leelawanti Wadhwa to maintain the suit for eviction of the defendant/respondent bakery after serving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 determining the tenancy.

Such a simple request for straightening the record has been declined by the trial Court.

The request for amendment of pleadings sought by the petitioner before the trial court under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, in order to incorporate by amendment the true identity of the tenant defendant, is based on such a rudimentary prayer that it disturbs me as to why such a request was declined by the trial Court compelling the petitioner to approach this Court to waste Mittal Manju 2014.02.18 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.1060 of 2014 -2- its precious time in passing this order on such a trivial but vital issue thereby causing unwarranted expense on the petitioner which could easily have been avoided had the trial court applied its mind before passing the impugned order.

Furthermore, when seen in the light of the order passed by this Court in CR No.1206 of 2010 (P-2) on 29th August, 2011 read with the consequential order dated 15th February, 2012 passed in CM No.2492-CII of 2012 praying for correction in the memo of parties to the extent that the concession given inadvertently recorded in the High Court order was not attributable to the petitioner but infact to the tenant respondent, then by the present order the same is clarified accordingly to leave no ambiguity.

The tenant gave the concession before this court in the said revision petition and not the landlord.

This Court is of opinion that for such correction no notice is required to be issued to the respondents and this petition eminently deserves to be allowed at the threshold.

Resultantly, the impugned order dated 06th January, 2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division).Gurgaon is set aside.

The application under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC is allowed.

The Registry of the Court at Gurgaon is directed to carry out the correction of the judicial file in the memo of parties.

Thereafter, suit to proceed in accordance with law.

(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE1102.2014 manju Mittal Manju 2014.02.18 10:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh