JUDGMENT R.N. BISWAL, J. — The writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.9.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.122 of 2004 allowing the petition under Order-6, Rule-17 of C.P.C. filed by the oppo¬site party. 2. The petitioners are the defendants and the opposite party is the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit. The suit was filed with prayer to restrain the defendants from taking possession of the suit land forcibly and from changing the nature and character thereof. In their W.S. the defendants, inter alia, pleaded that they had purchased the suit land from the father of the plaintiff through registered sale deed Nos.5575, 5576 and 5577 dated 8.8.1977. They also took the plea that after purchase of the land, they possessed and constructed a boundary wall over the same. On 2.3.2009, plaintiff filed the petition under Order-6, Rule-17 of C.P.C. seeking amendment of the plaint by inserting the prayer for declaration that the aforesaid registered sale deeds were void ab-initio and inoperative and by enhancing the valuation of the suit from Rs.100/- to Rs.600/-. The defendants filed objection to it. After going through the petition under Order-6, Rule-17 of C.P.C. and the objection thereto and hearing the counsel for the parties, the trial Court allowed the amend¬ment sought for with cost of Rs.100/- to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants. Being aggrieved with the said order, defend¬ants have preferred the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, while passing the impugned order, the trial Court failed to distinguish between voidable contract and void agreement. Oppo¬site party specifically pleaded in paragraph-6 of his plaint that the story of transfer of the suit land by father of the plaintiff during his life time in any manner whatsoever is completely a cock and bull story having no foundation at all and if at all any document in respect of transfer of the suit land is available with any body including the defendants (petitioners) that must be a forged document and sham one. When the opposite party admitted that the documents were forged, the same are voidable documents which are valid and operative till they are declared void by competent Court of law. When the opposite party admitted that the documents were forged, the same are voidable documents which are valid and operative till they are declared void by competent Court of law. In support of his submission, he relied on the decisions Smt. Ketaki Sahoo and others v. Smt. Laxmi Devi and others 1994 (II) OLR-283 and Bhukan Sahu v. Bharat Chandra Sahu and others 1988 (II) OLR-191 where it has been held by this Court that a void transaction is non-est in the eyes of law and in the case of voidable instrument, it remains good unless it is set aside by the competent Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the period of limitation for declaring the forgery of an instrument is three years from the date when the issue or registration becomes known to the plaintiff, as envis¬aged under Article-56 of the limitation Act. In the case at hand, since the aforesaid sale deeds were executed in the year 1977, the opp. party (plaintiff) could not have legally filed a suit in the year 2009, when the amendment petition was filed for declara¬tion of those documents to be void, because of bar under Article-56 of the limitation Act. 4. There is no quarrel over the proposition of law that a void document is non-est in the eyes of law and in case of void¬able document, it remains good unless it is set aside by a compe¬tent Court, as enunciated in the aforesaid two decisions. But, in the present case, in paragraph-13 of the writ petition, the peti¬tioners have pleaded that when the document are forged and sham and there was no passing of consideration, the documents are voidable and not void. But as per Section 25 of the Contract Act an agreement made without consideration, is void, unless it is expressed in writing and registered under the law for the time being in force for the registration of documents and is made on account of natural love and affection between the parties stand¬ing in a near relation to each other. There is nothing in the record to show that the father of the opposite party alienated the disputed land to the petitioners through registered sale deeds on account of natural love and affection between them or they are near relation to one another. If considered in this light the documents in question may also be void. There is nothing in the record to show that the father of the opposite party alienated the disputed land to the petitioners through registered sale deeds on account of natural love and affection between them or they are near relation to one another. If considered in this light the documents in question may also be void. As held by the apex Court in the Case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & others v. K.K. Modi and others 2006 (3) Civil Court Cases 57 (S.C.), while con¬sidering whether an application for amendment should or should not be allowed, the Court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment. It should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allow¬ing the prayer for amendment. Even if for academic discussion, it is presumed that the documents in question are void and the prayer sought to be inserted by way of amendment is barred by limitation still then there is no absolute bar to entertain the petition for amendment. For the interest of justice a time barred relief can also be inserted in the pleading as held in the case of South Konkan Distilleries and another v. Prabhakar Ganajan and others 2008 (4) Civil Court Cases 395 (S.C.), Pankaj and another v. Yellapa (D) by Lrs. and others 2004(3) Civil Court Cases 401 (S.C.) and Puran Ram v. Bhaguram and another* 2008 (3) Civil LJ 384. In the instant case, as stated earlier, the suit was filed with prayer to restrain the petitioners from taking possession of the suit land forcibly and from changing the nature and character thereof. In the Written Statement, the petitioners-defendants, inter alia, pleaded that they had pur¬chased the suit land from the father of the opp. party-plaintiff through registered sale deed Nos.5575, 5576 and 5577 dated 8.8.1977. So, the opp.party-plaintiff filed a petition for amend¬ment of the plaint by inserting the prayer for declaration that the aforesaid sale deeds were void, ab-initio. In my considered opinion the prayer sought for to be inserted in the plaint should be allowed for the interest of justice. 5. party-plaintiff through registered sale deed Nos.5575, 5576 and 5577 dated 8.8.1977. So, the opp.party-plaintiff filed a petition for amend¬ment of the plaint by inserting the prayer for declaration that the aforesaid sale deeds were void, ab-initio. In my considered opinion the prayer sought for to be inserted in the plaint should be allowed for the interest of justice. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that as envisaged under Section-8 of the Suit Valuation Act, the plaintiff has right to put his own valuation on the claim for the purpose of Court fee in a suit for declaration with consequential relief, what would be the value for the purpose of jurisdiction but he cannot arbitrarily put such valuation. In the case at hand, the opp. party ought have valued the suit atleast on the basis of consideration amount as reflected in the three sale deeds, but in order to avoid payment of Court fee, he has put valuation of the suit abysmally low. So, the amendment sought for should not have been allowed by the trial Court. 6. The trial Court held that opp. party was not a party to any of the sale deeds and he did not seek to set aside the same. So, he is not bound to value the suit as per the consideration amount given in the sale deeds. It further held that valuation of the suit would be found out at the time of hearing. As stated earlier, at the stage of consideration of a petition under Order-6, Rule-17 of C.P.C., the Court should not go into the correct¬ness or the falsity of the case in the amendment. It should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment, and the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing the prayer in a petition under Order-6, Rule 17 of C.P.C. Under such circumstances, the writ petition stands dis¬missed. No cost. Petition dismissed.