Birinder Kaur vs Baltej Sra - Amendment of Pleadings

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Analysis of the law |
| Precedent Analysis | Court's Reasoning |
| Conclusion | |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Accepted by Court |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 20, Cited by 0 ] ### Delhi High Court

Birinder Kaur vs Baltej Sra & Anr on 17 March, 2026

Author: Subramonium Prasad

Bench: Subramonium Prasad

$~66

                      *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                              Date of decision: 17th MARCH, 2026
                             IN THE MATTER OF:
                      +      CS(OS) 570/2019
                             BIRINDER KAUR                                          .....Plaintiff
                                                Through:     Ms. Zubeda Begum, Ms. Hardeep
                                                             Kaur Advs.
                                                versus
                             BALTEJ SRA                                          .....Defendant
                                                Through:     Mr. Ashok Chhabra and Mr. Kunal
                                                             Jaggi (Advocates)
                             CORAM:
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
                                                JUDGMENT (ORAL) 1.     The present Application has been filed by the Plaintiff under [Order VI
                      Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161831507/), 1908 (" [CPC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161831507/) ") for amendment of
                      pleadings.

1. The instant suit has been filed with the following prayers:-

"A. Decree of declaration cancelling the alleged
relinquishment dated 23.2.2018 registered by Sub
Registrar SR VII A Sarojini Nagar may please be
passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant
no.1 and defendant no.2 be directed to cancel the same
in its officials records.

B. The defendant no.1 may please be restrained by
permanent injunction from selling, alienating handing
over possession and other mode of transfer the title of
the above said property bearing no. Flat SFS FLAT
NO.4110, Pocket -4, Sector -C, Vasant Kunj, New
Delhi-110070

C. The defendant no.2 be directed to cancel the
registration of the said relinquished seed dated
23.2.2018 registered with him vide documents N0.925,
dated 23.02,2018 with his office Sub-registrar SR-VIII.

D. Any other or further relief which deems fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances may be granted
to the plaintiff against the Defendants."
3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that she is aged about 74 years of age and
is a cancer survivor and owner of Flat No.4110, Pocket-4, Sector-C, Vasant
Kunj, New Delhi-110070 ("property"). She states that she is the owner of
the property and had purchased it vide registered Sale Deed dated
12.07.2013 and took over possession of the same.

1. Defendant is the son of the Plaintiff. The husband of the Plaintiff is no
                     more. It is stated by the Plaintiff that out of love and affection and because
                     of her ill health, transferred the property in favour of one Smt. Satwant Kaur
                     Grewal through a Gift Deed dated 16.12.2014 registered with the Sub-
                     Registrar-XI, Delhi. Smt. Satwant Kaur Grewal passed away on 17.12.2017.
   

2. On the death of Smt. Satwant Kaur Grewal, who had become the
   
                      absolute owner of the property, was survived by two legal heirs, i.e., the
                     Plaintiff and Defendant and therefore after her death, the Plaintiff became
                     50% owner of the said property.
   

3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that Defendant, her own son, started
                     taking advantage of her illness and started harassing her. It is stated that
                     Defendant registered a Relinquishment Deed dated 23.02.2018 for her half
                     share in the Suit property in his favour. It is the case of the Plaintiff that she
                     was not made aware of the contents of the said Relinquishment Deed which
                     she was lured to enter into. It is stated that only after coming to know that
                     the Defendant was dealing with the property, the Plaintiff came to know of
                     the Relinquishment Deed and therefore the present Suit has been filed
                     alleging that the Relinquishment Deed is completely void.
   

4. The instant Suit has been filed for declaration and for cancellation of
                     the Relinquishment Deed dated 23.02.2018 registered in the office of the
                     Sub-Registrar SR VII A, Sarojini Nagar and for consequential injunction.
   

5. The written statement has been filed by the Defendant. Replication
                     thereto has also been filed. The Plaintiff now wants to amend the plaint by
                     incorporating the following paragraphs:-
   

Signing Date:23.03.2026
05.02.21

Signing Date:23.03.2026
05.02.21

Signing Date:23.03.2026
05.02.21

Signing Date:23.03.2026
05.02.21

Signing Date:23.03.2026
05.02.21
9. Reply has been filed by the Defendant to the said Application for
amendment of pleadings.

1. It is the case of the Defendant that all these allegations/averments are
   part of the pleadings in the Replication. He states that the present
   Application seeking amendment to the plaint are only explanatory in nature
   and amendments only explaining the paragraphs of the plaint are not
   permitted.

2. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff states that the present suit is based
   on fraud and therefore, the plaint must state the particulars of fraud and
   without stating the particulars of fraud, it will not be possible for the
   Plaintiff to lead evidence to substantiate the case of fraud and therefore the
   amendments are necessary.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on
   record.

4. Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC which mandates that material particulars
   must be given in cases where party pleads or relies on misrepresentation and
   fraud reads as under:-

"4. Particulars to be given where necessary.--In all
cases in which the party pleading relies on any
misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful
default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in
which particulars may be necessary beyond such as
are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars
(with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in
the pleading."
14. A perusal of the said provision indicates that in cases in which the
party pleading, relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful

                       default or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be
                      necessary, in that case specific particulars have to be given in the pleading.

1. It is well settled that general allegations in the plaint, however strong,
   are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud or undue influence.
   Parties relying on fraud or undue influence must give particulars and if
   details as to how fraud and undue influence has been committed is not given
   it can even result in rejection of the plaint.

2. Where undue influence is pleaded, a vague or general plea can never
   serve the purpose. Precise nature of fraud or undue influence and correct
   particulars has to be given in order to bring out a case of unfair advantage
   against the Defendant. Without such particulars, the party alleging fraud
   cannot lead evidence.

3. The Apex Court in Bishnudeo Narain & Anr. v. Seogeni Rai & Anr.,
   1951 SCC OnLine SC 34, has observed as under:-

"22. We turn next to the questions of undue influence
and coercion. Now it is to be observed that these have
not been separately pleaded. It is true they may overlap
in part in some cases but they are separate and
separable categories in law and must be separately
pleaded. It is also to be observed that no proper
particulars have been furnished. Now if there is one
rule which is better established than any other, it is
that in cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion,
the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars
and the case can only be decided on the particulars as
laid. There can be no departure from them in evidence.
General allegations are insufficient even to amount to
an averment of fraud of which any court ought to take
notice however strong the language in which they are
couched may be, and the same applies to undue
influence and coercion. See Order 6 Rule 4, Civil

Procedure Code.

xxx

1. We will deal with the case of coercion first. It will be seen that the plaintiffs' case regarding that is grounded on the single allegation that their father was threatened with death. When all the verbiage is cleared away, that remains as the only foundation. The rest, and in particular the facts set out in Paras 8 to 12 about the ferocious appearance of Firangi Rai and his allegedly high-handed and criminal activities and his character, are only there to lend colour to the genuineness of the belief said to have been engendered in Ghughuli Rai's mind that the threat of death administered to him was real and imminent. But as regards the threat itself, there is not a single particular. We do not know the nature of the threat. We do not know the date, time and place in which it was administered. We do not know the circumstances. We do not even know who did the threatening. Now, when a court is asked to find that a person was threatened with death, it is necessary to know these particulars, otherwise it is impossible to reach a proper conclusion."
2. Similarly, the Apex Court in Electrosteel Castings Limited v. UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited & Ors., 2022 (2) SCC 573, has observed as under:-

"7. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.

7.1. It is the case on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant
herein that in the plaint there are allegations of
"fraud" with respect to the assignment agreement
dated 30-6-2018 and it is the case on behalf of the
plaintiff-appellant herein that assignment agreement is

"fraudulent" inasmuch as after the full payment as per
the approved resolution plan under IBC and the
original corporate debtor is discharged, there shall not
be any debt by the plaintiff-appellant herein as a
guarantor and therefore assignment deed is fraudulent.
Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the plaintiff-
appellant herein that the suit in which there are
allegations of "fraud" with respect to the assignment
deed shall be maintainable and the bar under Section
34 of the Sarfaesi Act shall not be applicable.

7.2. However, it is required to be noted that except the
words used "fraud"/"fraudulent" there are no specific
particulars pleaded with respect to the "fraud". It
appears that by a clever drafting and using the words
"fraud"/"fraudulent" without any specific particulars
with respect to the "fraud", the plaintiff-appellant
herein intends to get out of the bar under Section 34 of
the Sarfaesi Act and wants the suit to be maintainable.
As per the settled proposition of law mere mentioning
and using the word "fraud"/"fraudulent" is not
sufficient to satisfy the test of "fraud". As per the
settled proposition of law such a pleading/using the
word "fraud"/"fraudulent" without any material
particulars would not tantamount to pleading of
"fraud".
8. In [Bishundeo Narain Bishundeo Narain v. Seogeni
Rai, 1951 SCC 447 : 1951 SCR 548] in para 22, it is
observed and held as under : (SCC p. 454)
"22. ... Now if there is one rule which is better
established than any other, it is that in cases of fraud,
undue influence and coercion, the parties pleading it
must set forth full particulars and the case can only be
decided on the particulars as laid. There can be no
departure from them in evidence. General allegations
are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud
of which any court ought to take notice however strong

                                     the language in which they are couched may be, and
                                    the same applies to undue influence and coercion. See
                                    Order 6 Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code."

8.1. Similar view has been expressed in [Ladli Parshad
Jaiswal Ladli Parshad Jaiswal v. Karnal Distillery
Co. Ltd., (1964) 1 SCR 270 : AIR 1963 SC 1279] and
after considering the decision of the Privy Council
in Bharat Dharma Syndicate Ltd. v. Harish
Chandra [Bharat Dharma Syndicate Ltd. v. Harish
Chandra, 1937 SCC OnLine PC 24 : (1936-37) 64 IA
143] , it is held that a litigant who prefers allegation of
fraud or other improper conduct must place on record
precise and specific details of these charges. Even as
per Order VI Rule 4 in all cases in which the party
pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud,
breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence,
particulars shall be stated in the pleading. Similarly
in K.C. Sharma & Co. [Union of India v. K.C. Sharma
& Co., (2020) 15 SCC 209] it is held that "fraud" has
to be pleaded with necessary particulars. In [Ram
Singh Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat Mehal Kalan,
(1986) 4 SCC 364] , it is observed and held by this
Court that when the suit is barred by any law, the
plaintiff cannot be allowed to circumvent that
provision by means of clever drafting so as to avoid
mention of those circumstances by which the suit is
barred by law of limitation.

8.2. In [T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal T.
Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467] , it
is observed and held in para 5 as under : (SCC p. 470)
"5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning
the petitioner for the gross abuse of the process of the
court repeatedly and unrepentantly resorted to. From
the statement of the facts found in the judgment of the
High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now
pending before the First Munsif's Court, Bangalore, is

                                     a flagrant misuse of the mercies of the law in receiving
                                    plaints. The learned Munsif must remember that if on a
                                    meaningful -- not formal -- reading of the plaint it is
                                    manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not
                                    disclosing a clear right to sue, he should exercise his
                                    power under [Order 7 Rule 11 CPC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161831507/) taking care to see
                                    that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled. And, if
                                    clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of
                                    action, nip it in the bud at the first hearing by
                                    examining the party searchingly under [Order 10 CPC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/161831507/).
                                    An activist Judge is the answer to irresponsible law
                                    suits."

8.3. A similar view has been expressed by this Court in
the recent decision in P. Selathal [Canara Bank v. P.
Selathal, (2020) 13 SCC 143] ."

1. It is, therefore, trite law that a plaint which is based on fraud or undue
   influence can be rejected if material particulars are found wanting.

2. This Court is not entering into the question as to whether the
   Replication would be a part of the pleadings or not. The trial in the instant
   case has yet not begun.

3. The law relating to amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17
   of the CPC and how amendment is to be permitted is no longer res integra
   and the same has been crystallized by the Apex Court in several cases. It is
   settled law that courts should have a liberal approach in allowing
   amendment of pleadings, however the same cannot be allowed in every case.
   The Apex Court in Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad & Ors, 2023 SCC
   OnLine SC 256, has held as under:

"33. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that the
courts should be liberal in allowing applications for
leave to amend pleadings but it is also well settled that

the courts must bear in mind the statutory limitations
brought about by reason of the Code of Civil
Procedure (Amendment) Acts; the proviso appended to
Order VI Rule 17 being one of them. In North Eastern
Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511, the law has been laid
down by this Court in the following terms : (SCC p.
517, para 16).

"16. Insofar as the principles which govern the
question of granting or disallowing amendments
under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the
relevant time) are concerned, these are also well
settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment
of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda
Patil [AIR 1957 SC 363] which still holds the field,
it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed
which satisfy the two conditions : (a) of not working
injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary
for the purpose of determining the real questions in
controversy between the parties. Amendments
should be refused only where the other party cannot
be placed in the same position as if the pleading had
been originally correct, but the amendment would
cause him an injury which could not be compensated
in costs. (Also see Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v.
Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar [(1990) 1 SCC 166].)"
34. In the case of P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525, the above observations
were reiterated by this Court and in the light of the
same, this Court in para 9 held as under:

"9. By reason of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, measures have been taken for
early disposal of the suits. In furtherance of the
aforementioned parliamentary object, further
amendments were carried out in the years 1999 and
2002. With a view to put an end to the practice of filing

applications for amendments of pleadings belatedly, a
proviso was added to Order 6 Rule 17 which reads as
under:

"17. Amendment of pleadings.--The court may at
any stage of the proceedings allow either party to
alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on
such terms as may be just, and all such amendments
shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose
of determining the real questions in controversy
between the parties : Provided that no application
for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has
commenced, unless the court comes to the
conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party
could not have raised the matter before the
commencement of trial.""
35. In B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712, this Court referred to
the following passage from A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd.
v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967
SC 96 wherein, it was held as follows:--

"4. This Court in A.K. Gupta & Sons Ltd. v.
Damodar Valley Corpn. [AIR 1967 SC 96 : (1966) 1
SCR 796] held:

"The general rule, no doubt, is that a party is not
allowed by amendment to set up a new case or a new
cause of action particularly when a suit on new case
or cause of action is barred: Weldon v. Neal [[L.R.]
19 Q.B. 394 : 56 LJ QB 621]. But it is also well
recognised that where the amendment does not
constitute the addition of a new cause of action or
raise a different case, but amounts to no more than a
different or additional approach to the same facts,
the amendment will be allowed even after the expiry
of the statutory period of limitation : See [Charan

Das v. Amir Khan](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1209054/) AIR 1921 PC 50 : [ILR 48 Cal
110] and L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner
and Co. [AIR 1957 SC 357 : 1957 SCR 438]

The principal reasons that have led to the rule last
mentioned are, first, that the object of courts and
rules of procedure is to decide the rights of the
parties and not to punish them for their mistakes
(Cropper v. Smith [[L.R.] 26 Ch. 700 : 53 LJ Ch 891
: 51 LT 729]) and secondly, that a party is strictly
not entitled to rely on the statute of limitation when
what is sought to be brought in by the amendment
can be said in substance to be already in the
pleading sought to be amended ([Kisandas Rupchand
v. Rachappa Vithoba Shilwant ILR (1909) 33 Bom
644 : 11 Bom LR 1042] approved in Pirgonda
Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [AIR
1957 SC 363 : 1957 SCR 595]).

The expression „cause of action‟ in the present
context does not mean „every fact which it is
material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to
succeed‟ as was said in Cooke v. Gill [[L.R.] 8 C.P.
107 : 42 LJCP 98 : 28 LT 32] in a different context,
for if it were so, no material fact could ever be
amended or added and, of course, no one would
want to change or add an immaterial allegation by
amendment. That expression for the present purpose
only means, a new claim made on a new basis
constituted by new facts. Such a view was taken in
Robinson v. Unicos Property Corpn. Ltd. [[1962] 2
All ER 24 (CA)] and it seems to us to be the only
possible view to take. Any other view would make
the rule futile. The words „new case‟ have been
understood to mean „new set of ideas‟ : Dornan v.
J.W. Ellis and Co. Ltd. [[1962] 1 All ER 303 (CA)]
This also seems to us to be a reasonable view to
take. No amendment will be allowed to introduce a

new set of ideas to the prejudice of any right
acquired by any party by lapse of time."
Again in Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar [(1974) 2 SCC
393] this Court held : (SCC p. 399, para 22)

                                        "The power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly
                                        wide and may at any stage be appropriately
                                        exercised in the interest of justice, the law of
                                        limitation notwithstanding. But the exercise of such
                                        far-reaching discretionary powers is governed by
                                        judicial considerations and wider the discretion,
                                        greater ought to be the care and circumspection on
                                        the part of the court."

"4. It is clear from the foregoing summary of the
main rules of pleadings that provisions for the
amendment of pleadings, subject to such terms as to
costs and giving of all parties concerned necessary
opportunities to meet exact situations resulting from
amendments, are intended for promoting the ends of
justice and not for defeating them. Even if a party or
its counsel is inefficient in setting out its case
initially the shortcoming can certainly be removed
generally by appropriate steps taken by a party
which must no doubt pay costs for the inconvenience
or expense caused to the other side from its
omissions. The error is not incapable of being
rectified so long as remedial steps do not
unjustifiably injure rights accrued."......"

---

1. Thus, the Plaintiffs and Defendant are entitled to
   amend the plaint, written statement or file an
   additional written statement. It is, however, subject
   to an exception that by the proposed amendment, an
   opposite party should not be subject to injustice and

                                        that any admission made in favour of the other party
                                       is not but wrong. All amendments of the pleadings
                                       should be allowed liberally which are necessary for
                                       determination of the real controversies in the suit
                                       provided that the proposed amendment does not
                                       alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis
                                       of which the original lis was raised or defence taken.
   

2. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in
   negation to the admitted position of facts or
   mutually destructive allegations of facts should not
   be allowed to be incorporated by means of
   amendment to the pleadings."

3. Similarly, the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v.
   Sanjeev Builders Private Limited, (2022) 16 SCC 1, after analysing several
   case laws has summarised the law regarding amendment of pleadings as
   under:-

"71. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus:

71.1. Order 2 Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a
subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for
application thereof are satisfied and the field of
amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview.
The plea of amendment being barred under Order 2
Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived.

71.2. All amendments are to be allowed which are
necessary for determining the real question in
controversy provided it does not cause injustice or
prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is
apparent from the use of the word "shall", in the latter
part of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

71.3. The prayer for amendment is to be allowed:

71.3.1. If the amendment is required for effective and
proper adjudication of the controversy between the
parties.

71.3.2. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided

(a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the
other side,

(b) by the amendment, the parties seeking
amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear
admission made by the party which confers a right
on the other side, and

(c) the amendment does not raise a time-barred
claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a
valuable accrued right (in certain situations).
71.4. A prayer for amendment is generally required to
be allowed unless:

71.4.1. By the amendment, a time-barred claim is
sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the
claim would be time-barred becomes a relevant factor
for consideration.

71.4.2. The amendment changes the nature of the suit.

71.4.3. The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or

71.4.4. By the amendment, the other side loses a valid
defence.

71.5. In dealing with a prayer for amendment of
pleadings, the court should avoid a hypertechnical
approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal
especially where the opposite party can be

compensated by costs.

71.6. Where the amendment would enable the court to
pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in
rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for
amendment should be allowed.

71.7. Where the amendment merely sought to introduce
an additional or a new approach without introducing a
time-barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to
be allowed even after expiry of limitation.

71.8. Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is
intended to rectify the absence of material particulars
in the plaint.

71.9. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a
ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of
delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be
allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately
for decision.

71.10. Where the amendment changes the nature of the
suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely
new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the
amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the
amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in
the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already
pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is
required to be allowed.

71.11. Where the amendment is sought before
commencement of trial, the court is required to be
liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in
mind the fact that the opposite party would have a
chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such,
where the amendment does not result in irreparable
prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite

party of an advantage which it had secured as a result
of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the
amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where
the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively
adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between
the parties, the amendment should be allowed.
(See [Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi Vijay
Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi, 2022 SCC OnLine
Del 1897] .)"

1. In the opinion of this Court, there is no impediment in permitting the
   Plaintiff to amend the Plaint to introduce material particulars of fraud in
   order to enable her to lead evidence on those particulars.

2. Applying the principles of Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC and the law
   relating to amendment of pleadings, this Court is inclined to allow the
   present Application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.

3. It is stated that the amended plaint has already been filed. Let the
   same be taken on record.

4. Let the amended Written Statement be filed. Replication thereto, if
   any, be filed within the time prescribed under the Delhi High Court
   (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

5. The Application is disposed of.

CS(OS) 570/2019

1. List before the learned Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings on 23.03.2026, i.e., the date already fixed in the matter.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
MARCH 17, 2026
hsk