PER COURT :- Heard respective counsel. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. This petition takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-II, Ambajogai in Regular Civil Appeal No. 113 of 1997, below application Exhibit 44 dated 6-9-2008. 4. Few facts which are required to be noted and which are not seriously disputed may be listed as follows :- . Petitioners were defendants 1 to 3, 6 and 7 and respondent No. 1 is plaintiff. Respondents 2 and 3 are original defendants 4 and 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 330 of 1992. Suit was for recovery of possession of the suit property. This suit, after entering appearance, was opposed by defendants by filing written statement. Issues were settled by the trial Court at Exhibit 117/ A. After considering the evidence the trial Court decreed the suit on 19-7-1997. Defendants 1 to 3, 6 and 7 were directed to handover possession of the suit property i.e. S. No. 45 to the extent of 5 Acres and 34 Gunthas situated at village Digholamba Tq.Kaij to the plaintiff within three months from the date of judgment. This judgment and decree was challenged by defendants 1 to 3, 6 and 7 by filing an appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was registered as RCS No. 113 of 1997. This appeal was heard by the first Appellate Court. The matter was reserved for judgment. Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 had filed an application seeking amendment to the plaint. Copy of the application is at Annexure "C". The application was filed on 4-8-2008. This amendment has been opposed on behalf of respondents/defendants in the first Appellate Court. However, copy of say is not available. 5. Copy of the application for amendment is on record at Annexure "C". From this, it appears that it was pleaded in paragraph No.1 ofthe application that the Appellate Court granted time to submit reply of the case law. In paragraph No.2, it has been pleaded that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession alleging that the alienations executed by defendant Nos 4 and 5 are not binding on him and may be adjudged it and order to be delivered up and cancelled. In paragraph No.2, it has been pleaded that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession alleging that the alienations executed by defendant Nos 4 and 5 are not binding on him and may be adjudged it and order to be delivered up and cancelled. In paragraph No. 3, it has been contended that as per the law prevailing, at the time of filing of the suit, did not require the prayer for cancellation of the alienations and also at the time of filing of this appeal itself. In paragraph No.4, it has been pleaded that defendants in their pleadings also did not specifically alleged regarding the necessity of prayer for cancellation of alleged alienations. In paragraph No.5, it is pleaded that the case law developed on the point of prayer for cancellation of alienations is developed on 12-3-2007 and was not under the knowledge of either plaintiffs/respondent No. 1 or his advocate till it is filed in the matter. In paragraph No.6 a reference is made to a book i.e. Specific Relief Act by Sarkar 1997 Edition and the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in AIR 1968 P and H 495. Case law dt. 12-3-2007 came to the knowledge of the plaintiff / appellant when the first appeal was pending. At the end of paragraph No.6, it has been pleaded that no man is perfect and law is so vast that no one can be said to have knowledge of each and every case law. I have read paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the application also, wherein, it has been pleaded that it becomes just and necessary in the interest of justice to amend the plaint to include the prayer for cancellation of alienations and also to amend the body of the plaint accordingly. (Emphasis supplied). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon various judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court. I would refer relevant judgments at appropriate time. The importance and consequences of the pleadings is referred to and emphasised by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments. Pleadings of the party, in fact, in, a civil case is a foundation of the stance taken by the party. Recent judgment 6f the Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India vs. S. N Goyal, 2008 AIR sew 4355 may be usefully referred to for this proposition. Pleadings of the party, in fact, in, a civil case is a foundation of the stance taken by the party. Recent judgment 6f the Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India vs. S. N Goyal, 2008 AIR sew 4355 may be usefully referred to for this proposition. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the suit in question was filed on 13-11-1992. Provisions of the CPC have suffered drastic amendment, which has been made enforceable from 1-7-2002. Order VI, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code is one of the provisions, which has suffered amendment by way of amended proviso, which reads thus; "Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." Supreme Court has considered the nature of this proviso, as to whether it is directory or mandatory and reached a conclusion that it is mandatory. This judgment of the Supreme Court is reported in 2009(4) Mh.L.J. (SC) 30 = 2009(1) Supreme 238 , Vidyabai vs. Padmalatha. This judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that the pleadings in the present case, by way of plaint instituted in the Civil Court were of 1992. This pleading, therefore, has to be amended in view of the statutory provisions applicable on the date of filing of the suit in the Civil Court i.e. on 13-11-1992. Mandatory proviso in the case on hand, therefore, has no application. 7. Application filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment, indisputably, is at belated point of time. Suit is of 1992. It has been heard and finally disposed of by the trial Court. Aggrieved defendants have filed an appeal pending in the first Appellate Court. It was heard by the first Appellate Court. Plaintiff has fairly, in paragraph No.1 of the application, has pleaded that the matter was adjourned and time was granted by the first Appellate Court. Probably the issue that there was no prayer for cancellation or declaration of the various sale deeds was raised before the first Appellate Court. Suffice to note that till reservation of the matter for judgment by the first Appellate Court this application was not filed. Probably the issue that there was no prayer for cancellation or declaration of the various sale deeds was raised before the first Appellate Court. Suffice to note that till reservation of the matter for judgment by the first Appellate Court this application was not filed. It was filed only before the delivery of the judgment of the first Appellate Court. This fact is also not in dispute. This filing of the application at belated stage is tried to be explained by the plaintiff from paragraph No.5 onwards. There, the reference to the developed case law of the Supreme Court is made and it has been pleaded that the plaintiff or his Advocate till perusing this judgment were not aware and therefore, could not file an application seeking amendment. 8. Shri Bhavthankar, learned Advocate submits that the dates of the sale deeds are very much material, cancellation of which has been now sought to be amended by the prayers. He has given details. First sale deed is of 1974, allegedly executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.2, second sale deed is of 1975, allegedly executed by defendants 4 and 5 in favour of defendant No.2, third sale deed is executed by defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in favour of defendant No. 2 in 1976 and last sale deed is allegedly executed in 1982 by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No. 1. At the cost of repetition it is to be noted that the suit was filed on 13-11-1992. Shri Bhavthankar, learned Advocate submits that enormous delay, which has now raised a question of suit being barred by limitation, has arose and amendment in this background could not have been allowed by the first Appellate Court. He, therefore, sought quashment of the order of first Appellate Court and submits that this petition be allowed. 9. Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad vs. Town Municipal Council, 2007(1) SCC 765 has been relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No.1. There in that case, the Supreme Court has considered the applicability of the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code and noted that the suit in that matter was filed in the year 1998. There in that case, the Supreme Court has considered the applicability of the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code and noted that the suit in that matter was filed in the year 1998. The Supreme Court held on facts that proviso was not applicable in view of section 16(2)(b) of the Amending Act of 2002, which was made enforceable on 1-7-2002. The facts of this judgment and ratio laid down are applicable to the facts of the case on hand, because the suit, in the case on hand, indisputably was filed on 13-11-1992. Another judgment to which my attention was invited by the learned counsel for the respondent is also of the Supreme Court in the case of Pankaja and another vs. Yellappa and others, 2004 (4) Mh.L.J. (SC) 488 = 2004 AIR SCW 4522. There, the Supreme Court has considered the amendment of pleadings i.e. addition of new relief. Suit was for permanent injunction restraining interference with possession. Amendment sought was for declaration of title. Court has noted the dispute amongst the parties in that case and on the issue whether declaration sought was barred by limitation, the Court has held that rejection of amendment, without considering the question of limitation is correct. In this judgment, more specifically paragraph No.5, the Court has referred to nature of the suit that the suit was for injunction and possession without seeking declaration of title. In paragraph No. 10, the Supreme Court has held that delay in filing the application for amendment by itself should not be the ground for rejection of the said application unless serious prejudice was caused to the parties. (Emphasis supplied). After this judgment, another judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Puran Ram vs. Bhaguram, 2008(4) Mh.L.J. 1 has been brought to my notice. There the suit was for specific performance of contract of sale. Correction or rectification of description of suit property was sought. The Court held that it is permissible to amend a part of the description of the suit property not only in the plaint but also in the agreement. The facts have been considered by the Court in paragraph No.4 of the judgment. There the agreement for sale was 1-4-1991. Plaintiff, in that case, had filed suit on 18-12-1997 for specific performance of the contract. The facts have been considered by the Court in paragraph No.4 of the judgment. There the agreement for sale was 1-4-1991. Plaintiff, in that case, had filed suit on 18-12-1997 for specific performance of the contract. Paragraph No. 15 of that judgment of Supreme Court is relevant, wherein, we can find ratio of that judgment. There the Supreme Court has referred to its earlier judgment reported in Pankaja (supra). In that decision, it has been noticed and recorded by the Supreme Court that there is no absolute rule that in such a case, the amendment should not be allowed and the discretion of the Court in that regard depends on the facts and circumstances of the case and such discretion has to be exercised on a judicious evaluation thereof. At the close of paragraph No. 15, the Supreme Court has observed that; apart from that in the present case, although, the relief claimed before as well as after the amendment remained the same i.e. a decree for specific performance of the contract for sale, even then, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as noted herein earlier, we do not find why the High Court should have interfered with the discretion used by the trial Court in allowing the application for amendment of the plaint. (Shri Bhavthankar, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Puran Ram (supra) was in respect of amendment of the description of the suit property and therefore, ratio is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. He, therefore, submits that the petition be allowed and order passed by the first Appellate Court be quashed and set aside. 10. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties. I have considered the judgment of the first Appellate Court. The first Appellate Court while allowing the amendment in paragraph No.8 has observed that, it is well settled that the amendment cannot be refused on technical grounds nor it can be refused merely on the ground of prolonged delay in filing Application specifically when the party can be compensated by costs. Shri Bhavthankar, learned Advocate has pointed out some observations of the learned first Appellate Court observing that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation. Shri Bhavthankar, learned Advocate has pointed out some observations of the learned first Appellate Court observing that the proposed amendment is barred by limitation. He submits that issue of limitation was raised before the first Appellate Court which has not been accepted by the first Appellate Court. It is not possible to agree with the said submission of Shri Bhavthankar. In my view it is high time now for this Court to interfere in the facts and circumstances of the case. The first appeal is on the verge of its disposal and the suit was filed in the year 1992. In my view, no case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been established. 11. In the result, Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.