High CourtsSingle Bench(2024) 09 DEL CK 0078

Aditya Madan vs State & Ors

Delhi High Court · Decided on 30 September 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Jain, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 2807 Of 2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 345 words

Manoj Jain, J

CM(M) 2807/2024 & CM APPL. 57397/2024 (early hearing)

1.

Present application has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking early hearing. Since counsel for the respondents are also present, with the consent of all concerned, date is preponed and matter as such has been taken up for final hearing.

2.

The guardianship petition has been filed by respondent no. 2 herein. Such petition has been filed under Section 14 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 read with Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 for appointment of guardian.

3.

When the above-said petition was pending before the learned Trial Court, an application under Order VI Rule XVII CPC was moved by the petitioner seeking amendment in the petition and by virtue of amendment, she merely wanted to incorporate one prayer to the following effect: -

“based on the content of the medical report dated 07.03.2023 referring to 40-70% disability of Justice (Retd.) Arun Madan, appoint Mrs. Kantaa Madaan as a guardian of Justice (Retd.) Arun Madan, being his caregiver qua the subject property being S-496, Greater Kailash Part I, New Delhi-110048.”

4.

According to learned counsel for petitioner herein, such prayer cannot be allowed as it runs contrary to the averments made in the petition itself.

5.

Needless to say, mere fact that the amendment has been allowed and one additional prayer has been incorporated in the petition as such, it cannot be automatically assumed that such prayer would be eventually allowed also by learned Trial Court.

6.

Learned Trial Court is duty bound to consider the averments made in the pleadings as a whole and after conducting summary proceedings, it can always come to any conclusion, either way.

7.

At the cost of repetition, this Court may clarify that merely because of the fact that prayer has been allowed to be incorporated would not mean that this prayer would also be allowed ipso facto.

8.

In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the present petition.

9.

Present petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.