TRILOK CHAND & ORS. vs BHAGWAT PRASAD RUSTAGI & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 02nd May, 2025 + CM(M) 568/2025 & CM APPL. 17837-17838/2025 TRILOK CHAND & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Rekha Rustagi, Advocate versus BHAGWAT PRASAD RUSTAGI & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Paras Verma, Mr. Sachet Sharma and Mr. Ayush Sharma, Advocates for R-1, R-2 & R-3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. When this matter was taken up by this Court on 27.03.2025, the following observations were made: - “1. Present petition has been filed by the plaintiffs and they are aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2024 whereby their application seeking amendment has been declined. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiffs submits that there was some inadvertent typographical/clerical error in para 13 of the plaint and she had, merely, requested the learned Trial Court to permit her to amend the same. 3. She submits that there was no requirement of leading any further evidence and once the amendment was allowed, the Court could have straightaway heard the final arguments as well. 4. The relevant portion of para 13 of the plaint reads as under:- “That the suit for declaration of share in Joint Family Property and permanent injunction is valued at Rs.1,25,00,000/- being the market value of the entire property, for the purpose of jurisdiction” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 568/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:03.05.2025 11:54:12 5. According to plaintiffs, the above said line should have been mentioned as under:- “That the suit for declaration of share in Joint Family Property and permanent injunction is valued at Rs.1,25,00,000/-. being the market value of the entire share of the plaintiffs in the property, for the purpose of jurisdiction” 6. It is submitted th