JUDGMENT 1. - Since both the petitions involve common issue, hence were heard together and are being disposed of by this order. 2. Both the petitions have been filed assailing orders dated 11/02/2009 passed by Sub Divisional Officer accepting applications filed under Order 6, Rule 17 , CPC seeking amendment in the plaints - against which revision petitions preferred by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue were also dismissed vide orders dated 20/07/2010. 3. Respondent-1 (plaintiff) filed a revenue suit seeking declaration & permanent injunction before SDO Chaksu (Jaipur district) and after the written statement was filed by petitioner-defendants, but before the issues could be framed on the basis of pleadings on record, applications were filed by respondent- plaintiff Under Order 6, Rule 17 , CPC seeking amendment in the plaints, which was seriously objected by petitioner on the premise that the amendment as sought for would change the nature of the suit and at such belated stage, such permission of seeking amendment would not be in the spirit of provisions contained in Order 6, Rule 17 , CPC, particularly after the amendment having been incorporated in the CPC. 4. Counsel submits that after the written statement being filed by defendants, the amendment is being sought for by respondent-plaintiff relating to her own pedigree which shows that the amendments sought to be pleaded are not bonafide and in the spirit of Order 6, Rule 17 , Civil Procedure Code. 5. It has come on record that the applications seeking amendment in the plaint was filed by respondent-plaintiff before the issues could be framed. The learned SDO vide order impugned observed that before the trial could commence, application for amendment was filed and what has been prayed for in the application under Order 6, Rule 17 , CPC in no manner would change the nature of the suit and respondent- plaintiff being an old illiterate lady, such a human error would always be permitted to be rectified through amendment as prayed for in the application. However, revision petition was filed by the petitioner but has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide orders impugned. 6. However, revision petition was filed by the petitioner but has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide orders impugned. 6. This Court has considered the contentions raised by Counsel and with his assistance, perused the material on record and does not find any manifest error being committed by the SDO while permitting the amendment as sought for by respondent-plaintiff in the plaints, which may call for interference. 7. Consequently, both the writ petitions fails and are hereby dismissed.Writ Petitions Dismissed. *******