OM PRAKASH vs BRAHM SINGH

Judgment text excerpt

$~71 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 12.12.2025 + CM(M) 2416/2025, CM APPL. 78531/2025 & CM APPL. 78530/2025 OM PRAKASH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate. versus BRAHM SINGH .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL) 1. Petitioner/defendant has assailed order dated 19.11.2025 of the learned trial court, whereby his application for amendment of Written Statement was dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner/defendant, I do not find it a fit case to even issue notice. 2. Broadly speaking, after closure of plaintiff’s evidence (in which as many as six witnesses were examined), at the stage of recording the defendant’s evidence, the petitioner/defendant filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the Written Statement in order to incorporate reference to two writ petitions, filed before this Court. The petitioner/defendant in his application took a stand that since the said two writ petitions were filed subsequent to filing of the Written Statement, he CM(M) 2416/2025 Page 1 of 5 pages Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA GIRISH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569 af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, Digitally Signed KATHPALIA postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155709 96b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA By:NEETU N NAIR Date: 2025.12.12 17:32:05 -08'00' Signing Date:12.12.2025 17:36:30 could not have incorporated those writ petitions in the Written Statement. The learned trial court, by way of the impugned order, elaborately discussed the factual matrix as well as a judicial precedent, flowing from the Supr