J U D G M E N T

1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 10 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, assailing the Order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) 84/2019 whereby I.A. No. 16481/2023 filed by Respondent No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) was allowed and Respondent No.2 was permitted to amend his Written Statement by substantially altering the admissions earlier made therein.

2. The underlying suit has been instituted by the Appellant/Plaintiff seeking declaration, partition, permanent injunction and rendition of accounts in respect of property bearing No. M-9, Green Park Main, New Delhi measuring approximately 500 sq. yards (“Suit Property”). The Appellant and Respondents No.1 and 2 are the children and legal heirs of Late Major Satya Pal Sud and Late Smt. Promila Sud.

3. As per the plaint, the Suit Property was purchased by Late Major Satya Pal Sud/father of the Appellant in the name of Smt. Promila Sud/mother of the Appellant through a registered perpetual lease deed dated 13.12.1957, subsequently transferred to the name of Major Satya Pal Sud and was treated as part of the family estate. After the demise of Major Satya Pal Sud on 29.05.1967 intestate, the property devolved upon Smt. Promila Sud and the three children in equal shares. By mutual understanding reflected in affidavits dated 27.12.1990, the property was mutated exclusively in the name of Smt. Promila Sud with the understanding that the property would not be partitioned during her life time. Smt. Promila Sud passed away on 06.01.2016.

4. It is further pleaded that the disputes inter se the parties arose thereafter when Respondent No.1 asserted exclusive ownership over the Suit Property and began collecting rent from tenants. Consequently, when the Appellant served a legal notice dated 02.05.2016 on the Respondents, in reply thereof, the Respondents for the first time relied upon an alleged Will dated 25.11.2014 purportedly executed by Smt. Promila Sud in their favour. The Appellant contends that the said Will is forged and fabricated and has therefore filed the

suit seeking a declaration to that effect along with consequential reliefs of partition and injunction.

5. Respondent No.2 filed his Written Statement on 03.05.2019 wherein he substantially supported the Appellant’s case. In the said Written Statement, Respondent No.2 admitted that the property ought to be equally divided among the three siblings and expressed having no knowledge regarding the alleged Will dated 25.11.2014. Respondent No.2 also reiterated that the mother had desired equal distribution of the property amongst her children.

6. After a lapse of more than four years, Respondent No.2 filed I.A. No. 16481/2023 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the Written Statement. By way of the proposed amendments, Respondent No.2 sought to completely retract his earlier admissions and take a diametrically opposite stand by asserting that the Will dated 25.11.2014 is genuine and enforceable, that the Suit Property was the absolute self-acquired property of Smt. Promila Sud, and that the Appellant’s suit deserves dismissal.

7. By the impugned order dated 26.11.2025, the learned Single Judge allowed the application holding that the trial had not commenced and that a liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering amendment of Written Statement. The Court further held that the proposed amendment merely clarifies the position of Respondent No.2 with respect to the Will dated 25.11.2014 and would assist in determining the real questions in controversy. Aggrieved thereof, the present Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant.

8. The impugned order was assailed by the Appellant contending that the application was a belated attempt to withdraw clear and categorical admissions made in the Written Statement and to realign with Respondent No.1. It was further contended that all material facts, including th