N C Bansal v. Upfc And ANR

$~A-9 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CM(M) 1223/2016 N C BANSAL ..... Petitioner Through Mr.J.A.Chaudhary, Advocate

Versus

UPFC AND ANR ..... Respondent Through

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

O R D E R

% 19.12.2016 CM No.44177/2016 (exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CM(M) 1223/2016 & CM No.44176/2016 (stay) 1.

By the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 21.09.2016 by which applications filed under Order 7 Rule 14 & Order 6 Rule 17 CPC were dismissed.

2.

Perusal of the trial court record shows that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed seeking to incorporate the information received under RTI application in the plaint. Based on information, it is claimed that the information is with regard to the forgery of signatures of the petitioner on the loan documents.

3.

The trial court noted that though the documents have been received by the petitioner in the year 2010, now in 2016 this application has been filed

for amendment of the plaint. Further, neither relief of declaration regarding the loan documents to declare the same as forged has been sought in the plaint and nor such an additional relief has been sought by the present application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and hence dismissed the application. 4.

There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. The petition stands dismissed.

All the pending applications also stand dismissed.

JAYANT NATH, J.

DECEMBER 19, 2016/v