JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.9.2008 whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. was rejected by the learned trial court. 2. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that virtually the said application was allowed by the learned trial court who observed that if the averments about the subsequent forcible dispossession of the Municipal Council is found true, the Court will take cognizance of the same and the possession will be restored to the plaintiff. However, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. was rejected. 3. In view of the fact that these subsequent developments took place during the pendency of the suit at the stage when the plaintiff's evidence was yet to commence and it has bearing on the suit itself. In the opinion of this Court, the learned trial court ought to have allowed the amendment allowing the plaintiff to lead evidence of such forcible dispossession. 4. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.10.2009 is set aside and the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. filed by the plaintiff is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/-.Writ Petition Allowed *******