Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 15th March, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (West), Tis Hazari, Delhi, in Suit No.744/2006, whereby the petitioner/plaintiff’s application under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed.

2. The main reason stated in the application for amendment of plaint was that in the month of February, 2012 when the petitioner was undertaking repairs in his ancestral house, he found that his father was also declared asami over the suit land. Therefore, it had become necessary for the petitioner to amend the plaint by filing of the application under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC for the purpose of proper adjudication of the suit.

3. Originally, the suit was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction, on the ground that the respondent/defendant is trying to dispossess him from the suit property without any reason, as the petitioner has been in continuous and exclusive possession of the suit property. It was also stated in the plaint that no notice was served upon the petitioner which was mandatory therefore the act of the respondent was illegal. In the prayer of the suit, the declaration was sought by the petitioner that he became owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession and prayed for permanent injunction against his dispossession by the respondent, mainly, on the ground that his possession is adverse to the Government.

4. The petitioner along with application under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC has also filed the proposed amended plaint whereby the relief for declaration is sought by the petitioner that he be declared exclusive owner of the suit premises and the official of the respondent be restrained from demolishing the construction and/or dispossessing the petitioner from the suit premises.

5. The application was strongly opposed by the respondent, mainly, on the ground that the amendment sought by the petitioner if allowed, would change the cause of action as well as very nature of the suit which was filed to claim the ownership by way of adverse possession.

6. It is alleged by the respondent that the suit land falls in Khasra No.708/2(0-9) of Village Wazir Pur, Delhi. The suit land has been unauthorizedly encroached by the plaintiff in the shape of shops and houses. As per land record Khasra No.708/2 (0-9) has been acquired vide Award No.1632 and placed at the disposal of DDA under Section 22(1) of D.D. Act vide notification No.F.88(9)/62/L&H II dated 05.09.1964. The physical possession has been taken over by the D.D.A. on 08.11.1963 from L.A.C./L&B. The temple is not built on DDA’s acquired land. The area of temple approx. 0-4 biswas has been left out in the said Award and other structures falls in D.D.A. acquired land.

7. It is admittedly alleged by the petitioner that in the year 1965, a compromise had been arrived at between the owners of land, i.e. Bhumidars and original tenants, i.e. Ram Chander (father of the petitioner) regarding payment of compensation from the Government. An application under Order XXIII, Rule 3 CPC was filed for recording of compromise and payment of enhanced compensation thereof and by virtue of the same, the father of the petitioner was given 10/16 share.

8. The following decisions are referred to :

(i) Arundhati Mishra vs. Shri Ram Charita Pandey, (1994) 2 SCC 29, Para 4 whereof reads as under:-

"4. The question in this case is whether the plea of adverse possession sought to be set up by the respondent could be permitted to be raised. The pleas based on title and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and the latter does not begin to operate until the former is renounced. It is his own case that he came into possession of the suit house in his own right and remained in possession as an owner. The appellant is only benamidar. Therefore, his plea is based on his own title. He never denounced his title nor ad