D.Y. Chandrachud JUDGMENT
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
1. The present appeal arises from a judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 5 October 2016 by which an order of the Trial Court allowing an application filed by the Appellant for amendment of the written statement was set aside.
2. On 11 October 2002, Sharda Rani Bhatia instituted a suit for the recovery of possession, arrears of damages and mesne profits against the Appellant. The property in dispute is situated on the first floor at 1/6 Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi. The case of the original Plaintiff is that Desh Raj Bhatia acquired the leasehold rights on 13 February 1962. On his death, his children are stated to have relinquished their rights and interest in favour of their mother, Lajwanti Bhatia. She executed a will bequeathing the property to her son Ratan Lal Bhatia who is stated to have become the exclusive owner of the property on her death. The original Plaintiff, Sharda Rani Bhatia is the widow of Ratan Lal Bhatia. The Appellant is the son of Ratan Lal Bhatia. Ratan Lal Bhatia died intestate. On his death, a registered deed of relinquishment was executed in favour of Sharda Rani Bhatia by the Appellant and the Respondent, the sons of Ratan Lal Bhatia and by Shakti Bhatia in favour of their mother. The original Plaintiff is stated to have permitted the Appellant and the Respondent to reside along with her in the property. The suit was filed by Sharda Rani Bhatia for recovery of possession from the Appellant and for consequential relief. The original Plaintiff is stated to have executed a deed of gift in favour of the Respondent in 2003 after which he was impleaded as co-plaintiff. The original Plaintiff died in 2005 and the suit is being pursued by the Respondent.
3. The Appellant filed his written statement in the suit on 22 February 2003. According to the Appellant, the Respondent had exercised undue influence in obtaining the deed of relinquishment. According to him, parties had lived together jointly even after the alleged relinquishment. The Appellant claims that an oral understanding was arrived at by which he was to occupy the first and second floors together with the terrace whereas the Respondent was to occupy the ground floor exclusively and their mother was to live on the ground floor or, with any of her sons, as she desired. Accordingly, it has been alleged that the family arrangement was acted upon and the Appellant is in occupation of the first and second floors together with the terrace while the Respondent is in possession of the ground floor.
4. Issues were framed on 14 August 2003. The Respondent moved an application Under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint on 7 February 2013, which was allowed on 21 September 2013. The Appellant filed a written statement to the amended plaint. The Appellant filed an application for amendment of the written statement in March 2016, which was opposed by the Re........