JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.8.2009 whereby the learned appellant court rejected the application of the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application in question was filed only after 10 days of filing of the civil suit and prayer for amendment was made in the suit and, therefore, the amendment sought was that in place of the petitioner showing the mere possession over the suit land, the word 'purchased plot' be mentioned. The petitioner further clarified it by mentioning that the petitioner had purchased the said plot of land on 10.1.1992 from one Jagdish Rai and was in possession thereof in accordance the said agreement. 3. The learned court below has rejected the amendment application by merely observing that the said agreement being not registered cannot prove the title of the petitioner plaintiff. 4. The question of amendment cannot be decided in the light of worth of the evidence but the same is required to be decided in view of the fact whether such pleadings would help the Court in resolving the controversy and at what stage of suit, the amendment in pleadings is sought. Since the amendment application was filed just after 10 days of filing the suit and trial obviously had not commenced, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff ought to have been allowed to correct the pleadings in the manner it was sought. 5. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.8.2009 is set aside and the amendment application filed by the petitioner shall be treated as allowed. The trial court shall proceed in accordance with law.Petition allowed. *******