Mrs. Anita Chaudhry, J.:- This petition is directed against the order dated 05.09.2016, passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar who dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in the written statement.

2. Harbhajan Lal had filed a suit for mandatory injunction and for directions to the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the room on the ground floor and some portion occupied by them on the first floor which was exclusively owned by him. This property was allotted to him by the Jalandhar Improvement Trust in 1980. It was pleaded that the portion in their possession was given on oral license. It was pleaded that he had disowned defendants no.1 & 2 in 2008 on account of their bad behaviour and the licensee was terminated. They had assured to vacate the property in February 2009 but had failed to do so. It was pleaded that he was dragged into frivolous litigation with an intention to grab the property.

3. The suit was filed in 2009. The defendants filed their written statement in January 2010 and took the plea that the property was joint Hindu family property. It was also pleaded that they had spent money from their pocket for purchase and construction and the property was ancestral.

4. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendants moved an application for framing additional issue that it was the shared house hold of defendant no.2 and they could not be evicted from the property. The appellate Court dismissed the application holding that issue could not be framed and the Court had to see whether the defendants were in possession of the property in the capacity of the licensee or any other capacity. The defendants aggrieved with the order filed a revision bearing No. CR-6631-2014 but that petition was withdrawn and the following order was passed:-

“Counsel for the petitioner seeks withdrawal of this petition with liberty to take all the pleas taken here in this petition before the lower court and further prays that the observations made in the impugned order may not come in the way of the petitioner. As prayed, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. However, any observations made in the impugned order would not come in the way of the petitioner at the time of adjudication of substantive rights of the parties.”

5. The trial Court dismissed the suit though it held that it was the self acquired property of the plaintiff but held that the defendants could not be evicted as defendant no.2 had a right of residence in the property and it could not be denied to her.

6. Both the plaintiff and defendant no.1 i.e. husband of Surinder Kaur filed an appeal and Surinder Kaur was arrayed as a proforma respondent. The appeal was filed in 2014. Two years later the proforma respondent i.e. daughter-in-law moved an application for amendment of the written statement to take a plea that the property in question was a shared house hold qua her and she may be permitted to amend the written statement. It was pleaded that inadvertently the plea was left to be pleaded in the written statement believing bonafidely that the legal pleas need not be raised but the evidence had already come on the file and they were not to lead any additional evidence and they be permitted to amend the written statement.

7. The plaintiff filed the reply to the application moved by defendant no.2 and took the plea that the house in question was not a shared matrimonial home and it was the self acquired property of the father-in-law and she could be evicted in due course of law for which he had already approached the Court.

8. The First Appellate Court before whom the application had been filed dismissed the application and para 9 reads as under:-

Respondent no.2 had filed the application that in the written statement they have not mentioned the fact that it is a shared house hold of respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that he had not mentioned these facts in the written statement, so he want