Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. 1. The present writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 29.8.2011 passed by Respondent No. 1, Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Meerut in SCC Revision No. 1 of 2011 upholding the order dated 7.1.2010 passed by the Respondent No. 2, Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut in SCC Suit No. 97 of 2007 whereby the amendment application of the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 3 (landlord) for amending the plaint was allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows; 3. The Plaintiff-Respondent No. 3 instituted a SCC Suit No. 97 of 2007 on 24.9.2007 before the Respondent No. 2 praying for a decree of dispossession on the ground of default in payment of rent, recovery of damages etc. and also on the ground of material alteration in the disputed premises. The petitioner filed a written statement to the aforesaid suit denying the plaint allegations of the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 3. 4. During the pendency of the trial, the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 3 moved an amendment application dated 2.7.2009 praying to amend the plaint by incorporating para 13 claiming damages for the use and occupation of the disputed premises at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month for the period subsequent to the termination of tenancy on the basis of the valuer's report. The valuer's report was mainly based on the circle rates notified by the District Magistrate. The petitioner filed his objection to the said amendment application. The trial court by order dated 7.1.2010 allowed the amendment application. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the tenant-petitioner preferred SCC Revision No. 1 of 2011 before the Respondent No. 1. The said SCC Revision was dismissed by the lower revisional court by order dated 29.8.2011. Hence the present writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that order VI Rule 17 CPC provides that application for amendment shall not 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 the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the amendment sought by the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 3 is highly belated and will change the nature of the suit . 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the amendment sought by the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 3 is highly belated and will change the nature of the suit . 6. Per contra, learned counsel for Plaintiff-Respondent No. 3 has supported the impugned orders passed by the courts below and submitted that the findings recorded by the courts below are based on material available on record and is in accordance with law, therefore, no interference is called for. It was further submitted that the amendment sought by the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 3 was well within time and moreover, at the time when the amendment application was filed, the trial had yet not commenced. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. In Rakesh Kumar Agarwal and others Vs. K.K. Modi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 385 ; it was laid down that the rule of amendment is essentially a rule of justice, equity and good conscious; and the power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interest of doing full and complete justice to the parties before the Court. 9. In this connection, it is also apt to extract Rule 17 of Order VI CPC, which is as under: "17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: 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." 10. During the pendency of the suit filed for arrears of rent and ejectment, an amendment application was filed by the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 3 for incorporating para 13 in the plaint claiming Rs. 10,000/- per month towards damages for the use and occupation of the disputed premises for the period subsequent to the termination of the tenancy. The courts below have recorded a very categorical finding that at the time when the amendment was sought, the trial had not commenced and the proposed amendment sought by the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 3 will not change the nature of the suit. The courts below have recorded a very categorical finding that at the time when the amendment was sought, the trial had not commenced and the proposed amendment sought by the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 3 will not change the nature of the suit. It is noteworthy that additional written statement has already been filed by the petitioner-tenant. The amendments of the pleadings would not amount to decisions on the issue involved. They only would serve advance notice to the other side as to the plea, which a party might take up. From the facts extracted above, it would show that the plaintiff was only claiming damages at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month on the basis of valuer's report and in the present case the petitioner has already availed the opportunity of filing additional written statement to the amended plaint, and raised all his defence. It is open to the petitioner to contest the suit on merit. Ultimately, if the suit is decided against the petitioner, he would have a chance to take up these points before the higher court. It cannot be conceived of a situation that the proposed amendment would cause irreparable injury or failure of justice. 11. In the case of Baldev Singh and others Vs. Manohar Singh and another, (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 498, the Apex Court has held that the courts should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. The apex court in paragraph 9, 16 and 17 of the the aforementioned case has further held as follows; "9. Keeping this principle in mind, let us now consider the provisions relating to amendment of pleadings. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with amendment of pleadings which provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. A bare perusal of this provision, it is pellucid that Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure consists of two parts. A bare perusal of this provision, it is pellucid that Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure consists of two parts. The first part is that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to amend his pleadings and the second part is that such amendment shall be made for the purpose of determining the real controversies raised between the parties. Therefore, in view of the provisions made under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC it cannot be doubted that wide power and unfettered discretion has been conferred on the Court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such manner and on such terms as it appears to the Court just and proper. While dealing with the prayer for amendment, it would also be necessary to keep in mind that the Court shall allow amendment of pladings if it finds that delay in disposal of Suit can be avoided and that the suit can be disposed of expeditiously. By the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 a proviso has been added to Order 6 Rule 17 which restricts the Courts from permitting an amendment to be allowed in the pleadings either of the parties, if at the time of filing an application for amendment, the trial has already commenced. However, Court may allow amendment if it is satisfied that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. So far as proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, we shall deal with it later." "16. This being the position, we are therefore of the view that inconsistent pleas can be raised by defendants in the written statement although the same may not be permissible in the case of plaint. In the case of M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co.Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s. Ladha Ram & Co. [ (1976) 4 SCC 320 ], this principle has been enunciated by this Court in which it has been clearly laid down that inconsistent or alternative pleas can be made in the written statement. Accordingly, the High Court and the Trial Court had gone wrong in holding that defendants/appellants are not allowed to take inconsistent pleas in their defence." "17. [ (1976) 4 SCC 320 ], this principle has been enunciated by this Court in which it has been clearly laid down that inconsistent or alternative pleas can be made in the written statement. Accordingly, the High Court and the Trial Court had gone wrong in holding that defendants/appellants are not allowed to take inconsistent pleas in their defence." "17. Before we part with this order, we may also notice that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC provides that amendment of pleadings shall not be allowed when the trial of the Suit has already commenced. For this reason, we have examined the records and find that, in fact, the trial has not yet commenced. It appears from the records that the parties have yet to file their documentary evidence in the Suit. From the record, it also appears that the Suit was not on the verge of conclusion as found by the High Court and the Trial Court. That apart, commencement of trial as used in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 in the Code of Civil Procedure must be understood in the limited sense as meaning the final hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of arguments. As noted herein after, parties are yet to file their documents, we do not find any reason to reject the application for amendment of the written statement in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC which confers wide power and unfettered discretion to the Court to allow an amendment of the written statement at any stage of the proceedings." 12. The courts below have given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned orders in favour of the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 3. Reasons mentioned therein are good enough to satisfy the orders and no fault can be found with the approach adopted by the courts below. This Court, while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can not substitute its opinion for the opinion of the court below unless it is found that the conclusion drawn by the courts below is manifestly illegal and perverse. 13. In view of what has been discussed, herein above, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned orders which may warrant any interference. 14. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 13. In view of what has been discussed, herein above, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned orders which may warrant any interference. 14. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the court below is directed to expedite the disposal of the SCC Suit No. 97 of 2007 pending before it. _