All amendments necessary for determining the real issue in controversy between the parties must be allowed, and the fact that the amendment may be belated cannot be a ground to disallow the amendment, where the primary ingredient envisaged in Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is satisfied.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

C. Hari Shankar, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails order dated 5th April 2022, whereby the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge ("the learned ASCJ") has allowed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) preferred by the respondent, as the plaintiff in the said suit.

2. A brief factual recital would be apposite.

3. CS 11012/2016, filed by the respondent against the petitioners, sought a restraint against the petitioners from dispossessing the respondent from the suit property located at WZ-75/3, Plot No. 87, Killa No.22, Sant Garh, Major Bhupinder Singh Nagar, New Delhi ("the suit property") and from demolishing the existing structure or making any other construction in its place.

4. On the ground that, despite an order of stay having been passed in CS 11012/2016, on 24th December 2010, restraining any construction being unauthorised construction from coming up on the suit property, the defendant in the suit was carrying out unauthorized construction thereon, the respondent filed an application under Section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The learned ASCJ, on the said application, directed the MCD to take action for demolishing the allegedly unauthorised construction erected by the defendant in the suit property.

5. The respondent alleged, in his application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC (which has come to be allowed by the impugned order) that there was no compliance with the aforesaid direction, for demolition of the unauthorised construction.

6. At this stage, the present petitioner moved an application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC before the learned ASCJ in CS 11012/2016, for being impleaded in the said proceedings. She asserted, in the said application, that she was the registered owner and in absolute possession of the suit property since 22nd October 2011, having purchased the suit property from one Harpreet Kaur vide a registered Sale Deed of the said date.

7. Mr. Robin Bansal, learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that a copy of the aforesaid application was supplied to learned Counsel for the respondent on 22nd October 2013 itself, when the application came up for hearing before the learned ASCJ, as is reflected in the order passed by the learned ASCJ on the said date, which has been placed on record.

8. Subsequently, vide order dated 18th November 2013, the petitioner's application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC was allowed and the petitioners were impleaded as a party in CS 11012/2016. Mr. Bansal has invited my attention to the order dated 18th November 2013 whereby the application was allowed, which records the contentions of the petitioner that she had placed on record the registered Sale Deed whereby Harpreet Kaur had sold the suit property to her.

9. Thus, submits Mr. Bansal, at least on 18th November 2013, the respondent was well aware of the fact that, vide registered Sale Deed dated 22nd October 2011, the suit property had been purchased by the petitioners from Harpreet Kaur and was in possession of a copy of the registered Sale Deed, whereunder this transaction took place.

10. The petitioners filed CS DJ 608006/2016 seeking a declaration that the Sale Deed dated 21st October 2011, whereunder the petitioners purchased the suit property from Harpreet Kaur, was valid, and also seeking injunctive reliefs on that basis. Summons in the aforesaid suit came to be served on the respondent on 22nd March 2014.

11. According to the respondent, in the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which has come to be allowed by the impugned order, the respondent acquired knowledge of the aforesaid purchase, by the petitioners, of the suit property from Harpreet Kaur only on receiving the summons in the aforesaid suit, i.e. CS DJ 608006/2016. Mr. Bansal submits that this was a misstatement, as the respondent had, in fact, acquired knowledge of the said transaction on 21st October