HIMANSHU GUPTA vs BHARAT SHARMA

Judgment text excerpt

$~81 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 14th July, 2025 + CM(M) 1211/2025 & CM APPL. 40913-40914/2025 HIMANSHU GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhishek and Mr. Sahil Sharma, Advocates. versus BHARAT SHARMA .....Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is defendant No.5 before the learned Trial Court. 2. He is aggrieved by order dated 02.06.2025, whereby the learned Trial Court has disposed of two applications viz one application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, whereby his request to amend the plaint has been allowed and the other application moved by the petitioner herein whereby his request for rejection of the plaint has been declined. 3. The suit is, reportedly, at the initial stage, and the pleadings are yet not complete and issues have also yet not been framed. During course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner showed copy of plaint (amended one) and copy of application moved under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. These be retained on record. 4. By virtue of application moved by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, he was only making reference to one inadvertent typographical error in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1211/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:16.07.2025 16:57:00 prayer (b) of the plaint. In such prayer, the property was described as measuring 220 sq. yds and it was mentioned by the plaintiff in his application that the property was, in fact, measuring 110 sq. yds. 5. It was in the abovesaid factual background that the learned Trial Court has allowed such application. 6. Mr. Sahil Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner, submits that earlier also, the plaintiff had carried out amendment in the plaint and, granting repeated indu