$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010136792026 + C.R.P. 96/2026 and CM APPL. 21771/2026 (stay) RAKESH GOEL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajinder Pal Singh, Ms. Ina Negi and Mr. Sanyam Tandon, Advocates versus HIRA LAL & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Shah, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 23.09.2026 1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court in CS SCJ/607223/2016, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend his written statement has been dismissed. 2. Briefly, the suit has been preferred by the respondents/plaintiffs seeking possession of the suit property. In the plaint, the plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the owners of land measuring 52 sq. yards out of Plot No. R-137, situated in the abadi known as Rishab Nagari, in the area of Village Dhirpur, Delhi. It was claimed that the suit property forms part of land measuring 250 square yards (5 biswas) of Plot Nos. 137 and 138, situated at Village Dhirpur, Delhi State abadi known as Rishib Nagari, Delhi-110009. 3. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that the said plot was purchased This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/09/2026 at 11:48:34 by one Pratap Singh from Shri Kaushal Kishore vide sale deed dated 15.06.1959. It was claimed that since the date of purchase, the plaintiffs have been in actual possession of the plot, which had no construction. It was further averred that in the last week of January, 2004, when the plaintiffs visited the suit property, it was noticed that the defendant had encroached upon the suit property and was carrying out construction. On being served with the summons, the defendant filed his written statement on 06.05.2004. In the written statement, the defendant claimed to be the owner and in possession of the suit property. The pleadings support the date of sale deed and the averment regarding construction in the last week of January, 2004, the record also specifically records filing of the written statement on 06.05.2004. 4. A perusal of the record reveals that thereafter, during the pendency of the suit, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte on 26.11.2012. An application filed under Order IX Rule 7 CPC seeking setting aside of the said ex-parte order came to be dismissed on 25.04.2018, however, the defendant was permitted to participate in the proceedings thereafter. In between, one Manoj Kumar Sharma filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC claiming that he had become the subsequent owner of the suit property, having purchased it from the plaintiffs. The said application was allowed vide order dated 01.08.2016. The application was accompanied by documents relating to the alleged transaction in his favour. By the time the defendant's application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC was decided on 25.04.2018, the evidence of Manoj Kumar Sharma and PW-2, Sh. Jagmender Singh, had already been recorded. The suit thereafter proceeded and, in the year 2026, the defendant preferred the underlying application This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/09/2026 at 11:48:34 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the defendant contends that the order is cryptic and the application has been dismissed on the ground that the same was filed belatedly. Further, the Trial Court has also imposed a cost of Rs.20,000/- by observing that the defendant has been delaying the trial by filing repeated applications. Learned counsel submits that, in the subject application, the defendant seeks to challenge the ownership documents of Manoj Kumar Sharma, which he had no occasion to do earlier. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs, however, has defended the impugned order and submits that the amendment application has been filed after nearly 22 years of filing the initial written statement. He further submits that most of the grounds taken were already within the knowledge of the defendant and are in the nature of objections pertaining to the ownership of the erstwhile owners. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as well as gone through the application and the impugned order, this Court finds no merit in the revision, inasmuch as the defendant has sought to file the present application challenging the title documents, which were brought on record in the proceedings arising from the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC. The same cannot now be permitted by way of the present application. Further, it is not the case of the defendant that Manoj Kumar Sharma has now set up a new case for which the written statement needs to be amended. Manoj Kumar Sharma has only stepped into the shoes of the plaintiffs by virtue of the title documents relied upon by him. The other objections do not pertain to any new facts which have come to the knowledge of the defendant and of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/09/2026 at 11:48:34 which he was not aware at the time of filing of the initial written statement. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed alongwith pending application. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2026 na This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/09/2026 at 11:48:34