JAYANT NATH, J.

1. By the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 11.04.2016 by which an application filed by the respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement was allowed.

2. Some of the relevant background facts of the case are that the suit is filed for possession and arrears of damages and mesne profits against the respondent for property No. 1/6, Ramesh Nagar (First Floor) New Delhi. Originally, the plaint was filed by the mother Smt. Sharda Rani Bhatia against her son, the respondent. It was stated that late Sh. Desh Raj Bhatia out of his own funds purchased the property measuring 100 sq. yards in Ramesh Nagar vide lease deed dated 13.02.1962. On the death of Sh. Desh Raj Bhatia, his children relinquished their rights and interests in favour of their mother Smt. Lajwanti Bhatia i.e. the widow of late Sh. Desh Raj Bhatia. Smt. Lajwanti Bhatia who became owner of the property in her life time executed a Will in favour of her son Sh. Ratan Lal Bhatia. On the death of Smt. Lajwanti Bhatia, Sh. Ratan Lal Bhatia hence became the exclusive owner of the property. The original plaintiff is the widow of late Sh. Ratan Lal Bhatia and the respondent is the son of late Sh. Ratan Lal Bhatia

3. On the death of late Sh. Ratan Lal Bhatia who died intestate, the respondent and two other children, namely, Sh. Subhash Chander Bhatia who is now the petitioner and Smt. Shakti Bhatia executed a registered relinquishment deed of their shares in favour of their mother, namely, Smt. Sharda Rani Bhatia. Hence, it is stated that Smt. Sharda Rani Bhatia, the original plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit property. She is said to have permitted her son, the respondent and Sh. Subhash Chander Bhatia, the petitioner to stay along with her in the suit property. The suit was filed against the respondent for recovery of possession, etc.

4. After fling of the suit, the original plaintiff is said to have executed a gift deed in favour of the present petitioner in 2003. Thereafter, the present petitioner was impleaded as petitioner No.2. Smt. Sharda Rani Bhatia died in 2005 and hence, the petitioner is now the sole plaintiff.

5. The respondent in his written statement has stated that the entire exercise was done under the influence of the petitioner who influenced his late mother to file the present suit. It is further stated that it was the petitioner who blackmailed and pressurised the respondent and exerted undue influence on the respondent to execute the relinquishment deed. Hence, it is stated that the said document is null and void. At best, the same was created at the behest and instigation of the petitioner. It is stated that even after the alleged relinquishment deed, the parties have been living as a joint family and all the properties are joint. The respondent being the eldest son, in order to avoid acrimony in the family reached an understating with the petitioner, the younger brother and his mother. Accordingly, the respondent was to occupy the first and second floor along with terrace and his younger brother/the petitioner was to occupy the ground floor of the suit property exclusively. The mother was to live on the ground floor or with any of her sons at her pleasure. It is stated that the oral family arrangement was agreed upon and accordingly, the respondent is enjoying the first and second floor along with terrace and the younger brother is enjoying possession of the ground floor.

6. The issues have been famed on 14.08.2003 as follows:-

“1. Whether the defendant is in occupation of the suit premises in the capacity of owner thereof? OPD

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages? If so at what rate and for which period? OPP

4. Relief.”

7. The respondent thereafter moved the present application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking an amendm