R.P. Sondurbaldota, J.

1. The question that falls for consideration of the court in this petition is of interpretation of Order VI, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure. The respondent, is the original plaintiff, who has filed suit in the Court of Small Causes, inter alia, for recovery of possession of the suit property from the petitioner. He had, filed an application for amendment of the plaint, which was allowed by the order dtd. 16th December, 2013. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The case set out by the respondent in his eviction suit is that he is the owner of the building known as "Mujibur Rehman & Brother Building" and the petitioner is the tenant in respect of the open space, admeasuring about 4,000 sq. ft., situate in the compound of the building from where the petitioner is running a factory under the name and style as "K.T. Kubal & Co.". The monthly rent for the open space is Rs.813.50. The petitioner is also monthly tenant in respect of three shops in the building in respect of which, there is a separate rent receipt. The ground of eviction alleged against the petitioner is of creating nuisance for the other occupants in the building and encroaching upon the common areas. The petitioner filed written statement dtd. 23rd July, 2012. In it's written statement, the petitioner denies that it is the tenant in respect of the open space as alleged in the plaint. According to it, the tenancy is in respect of the factory shed, admeasuring about 4964.03 sq. ft. It further contends that, the owners of the property as per the Property Register Card are five individuals, who have given power of attorney to the respondent. On the basis of power of attorney, the petitioner has been handing over the amount of monthly rent to the respondent. The petitioner claims that it is not aware as to when and how the respondent became the owner and the landlord of the property in question as there is no letter of attornment from the five persons addressed to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner challenges the derivative title of the respondent.

3. The challenge to the derivative title of the respondent was raised by the petitioner for the first time on 18th July, 2012 when it filed affidavit-in-reply to the application for interim reliefs filed by the respondent. It was thereafter again raised in (i) the written statement dtd. 23rd July, 2012, (ii) an additional affidavit dtd. 8th August, 2012 filed in the interim proceedings, (iii) written submissions dtd. 8th January, 2013 filed in the appeal arising out of the interim order, (iv) while an issue specifically on the derivative title of the respondent was framed on 8th July, 2013, (v) when the writ petition filed by the petitioner to challenge the order of deletion of that issue was allowed on 6th August, 2013, (vi) when the respondent's affidavit of examination-in-chief dtd. 20th August, 2013 was filed (vii) when the objections to exhibiting the documents was taken and (viii) when the writ petition filed against the order exhibiting of documents was allowed by this court on 20th November, 2013. Thus, since the filing of the suit on eight occasions, during the period dtd. 18th July, 2012 to 20th November, 2013, the attention of the respondent was drawn to the challenge to his derivative title.

4. On 21st November, 2013, the respondent filed his application for amendments to the plaint to add thereto, facts for disclosing his derivative title. The petitioner contested it on the basis of the bar imposed by the Proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court allowed the application by the impugned order with an observation that in the facts of the case no "in-diligence" can be attributed to the respondent.

5. The provision of Order VI, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, which is required to be interpreted for deciding the present petition reads as f