1. Heard Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Datta, learned, appearing for the respondent. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that they filed a petition seeking amendment of the plaint before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. 91 of 2010 for incorporating an additional paragraph as paragraph 20A and additional prayer as (iii)(a) to the relief. Schedule of the proposed amendment is usefully reproduced: "Schedule of the amendment (i) That, after paragraph 20 at p.8 of the plaint, a paragraph containing the following statement may be inserted: "20A. Since the defendant has entered into an agreement for the sale of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff on 25th July, 2010 in presence of the other legal heirs, namely, Smt. Sibani Adhikari, Smt. Bhabani Basak and Smt. Seema Deb, all three are the sisters of the plaintiff and the defendant, and had received Rs. 25,000 as an advance for such agreement and since he has denied to sale the land in favour of the plaintiff, a decree in this regard is required to be passed directing the defendant to execute the sale deed, in respect of the suit land, on receipt of the rest of the sale consideration amounting to Rs.9,75,000 and in case of refusal of the defendant to do so, a decree directing the sub-registrar Sadar, to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff through this hon'ble court." (ii) At p. 9, in the prayer portion of the plaint, the following prayer may be added: "(iii)(A) Pass a decree declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree of specific performance of contract against the defendant for sale of the suit land on receipt of the rest of the sale consideration, i.e., Rs. 9,75,000 and execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and in case of failure to execute the same, your honour may be pleased to direct the sub-registrar Sadar, to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit land, under the seal and signature of this hon'ble court." 3. On the face of objection as raised by the defendant, learned trial court rejected that prayer by the impugned order dated 17.8.2011 on the solitary ground that if the amendment is allowed to be carried out that would change the character of the suit. On the face of objection as raised by the defendant, learned trial court rejected that prayer by the impugned order dated 17.8.2011 on the solitary ground that if the amendment is allowed to be carried out that would change the character of the suit. 4. Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent filed objection to the prayer of the petitioner for interference with the impugned order and submitted that there is legal bar as provided in proviso to rule 17 of order 6 of the CPC. In support of the said contention, he submitted that after one year of filing the written statement, the petition for amendment had been filed and the trial having already commenced/such application seeking amendment had rightly been rejected by the trial court. Learned counsel for the respondent relied the decision reported in Mahadev Govind Charge and Ors. v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka, AIR 2011 SCW 3220 wherein Apex Court held that - "The concept of ‘hearing by the court', in fact, has common application both under Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence. Even in a criminal matter the hearing of the case is said to be commended by the court only when it applies its mind to frame a charge, etc. Similarly, under civil law also it is only when the court actually applies its mind to averments made by party/parties, it can be considered as hearing of the case. This court in the case of Siraj Ahmad Siddiqui v. Prem Nath Kapoor (1993) 4 SCC 406 : AIR 1993 SC 2525 : AIR 1993 SCW3273) while dealing with the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, referring to the concept of first hearing, held as under : "13. This court in the case of Siraj Ahmad Siddiqui v. Prem Nath Kapoor (1993) 4 SCC 406 : AIR 1993 SC 2525 : AIR 1993 SCW3273) while dealing with the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, referring to the concept of first hearing, held as under : "13. The date of first hearing of a suit under the Code is ordinarily understood to be the date on which the court proposes to apply its mind to the contentions in the pleadings of the parties to the suit and in the documents filed by them for the purpose of framing the issues to be decided in the suit..........................We are of the view, therefore, that the date of first hearing as defined in the said Act is the date on which the court proposes to apply its mind to determine the points in controversy between the parties to the suit and to frame issues, if necessary." 5. Learned counsel for the respondent also referred to a decision of this court in Om Prakash Khakholia and Ors. v. Md. Rafiuddin Ahmed © Rickbaba, (2010) 3 GLR 906 where this court has considered the relevant aspects in view of the provision of rule 17 of the order 6. As interpreted has been recorded in para 12 and extracted hereunder: "12. There is no dispute that an amendment of pleadings can be allowed if the amendment, sought for, does not change the nature or character of the proceedings in a given case and/or the amendment, sought for, would help in the resolution of the real controversy in a suit. When, however, hearing of a suit has already commenced and an amendment sought for, is of such a nature that it would, if allowed, not change the nature or character of the suit or even when amendment is found to be necessary for determination of the real controversy in a suit, the legislative intent, as reflected by the proviso to rule 17; is that such are amendment shall not be a/lowed unless the court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party, seeking amendment, could not have sought for the amendment before the trial commenced. In other words, after a trial commences, no amendment, even if necessary for resolution of a controversy in a suit, can be allowed by a court unless it comes to a finding that in spite of due diligence, the party, which has applied for amendment, could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial." 6. In countering the legal proposition as advanced by Mr. S. Datta, learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. B.N. Majumder, learned counsel contended that there is no such legal interdicts as such and he cited the decision of the Apex Court as reported in AIR 2008 SCW 4763 where the Supreme Court held that "It is always open by way of an amendment to amalgamate the two reliefs in one suit. That apart, at the time of allowing or refusing to amend the plaint, it is not open for the court to decide the merits of the suit which can only be gone into and decided by it at the time of decision of the suit. The plaintiff/appellant is entitled to plead and prove the amount of rent and the equivalent amount of benefit received out of the letting out of the property to show the contractual rent of use and occupation charges. On the basis of the lease agreement, it is clear that the mesne profit/damages cannot be awarded less than the contractual rate of use and occupation charges. Therefore, in the event of allowing the amendment of the plaint in the aforesaid circumstances, the nature of the suit shall not be changed. Therefore, in our view, there was no reason as to why the prayer for amendment of the plaint should not be allowed. In our view also, the prayer for amendment of the plaint was necessary in order to adjudicate the real controversies between the parties, i.e., with respect to the quan-adjudicate the real controversies between the parties, i.e., with respect to the quantum of the mesne profits/damages. 7. In another decision as reported in Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh, AIR 2009 SCW 6131 on the scope and style of carrying out the amendment, the Apex Court held: "7. As noted hereinearlier, the prayer for amendment was refused by the High Court on two grounds. 7. In another decision as reported in Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh, AIR 2009 SCW 6131 on the scope and style of carrying out the amendment, the Apex Court held: "7. As noted hereinearlier, the prayer for amendment was refused by the High Court on two grounds. So far as the first ground is concerned, i.e., the prayer for amendment was a belated one, we are of the view that even if it was belated, then also, the question that needs to be decided is to see whether by allowing the amendment, the real controversy between the parties may be resolved. It is well settled that under order 6, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wide powers and unfettered discretion have been conferred on the court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such a manner and on such terms as it appears to the court just and proper. Even if, such an application for amendment of the plaint was filed belatedly, such belated amendment cannot be refused if it is found that for deciding the real controversy between the parties, it can be allowed on payment of costs. Therefore, in our view, mere delay and laches in making the application for amendment cannot be a ground to refuse amendment. It is also well settled that even if the amendment prayed for is belated, while considering such belated amendment, the court must bear in favour of doing full and complete justice in the case where the party against whom the amendment is to be allowed, can be compensated by cost or otherwise. [See B.K.N. Pillai v. P. Piliai and Another, AIR 2000 SC 614 at p.616]. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to hold that only because there was some delay in filing the application for amendment of the plaint, such prayer for amendment cannot be allowed. 8. So far as the second ground is concerned, i.e., the prayer for amendment of plaint, if allowed, shall change the nature and character of the suit, we are unable to accept this view of the High Court. We have carefully examined the amendment prayed for and after going through the application for amendment of the plaint, we are of the view that the question of changing the nature and character of the suit, if amendment is allowed, cannot arise at all. We have carefully examined the amendment prayed for and after going through the application for amendment of the plaint, we are of the view that the question of changing the nature and character of the suit, if amendment is allowed, cannot arise at all. The suit has been filed for eviction, inter alia, on the ground of arrears of rent. It cannot be disputed that even after the amendment, the suit would remain a suit for eviction. Therefore, we are unable to agree that if the amendment of the plaint is allowed, the nature and character of the suit shall be changed. Accordingly, the High Court was not justified in holding that the nature and character of the suit shall be changed, if such prayer for amendment is allowed." 8. Ultimately, he referred a decision of the Supreme Court in Baldev Sing and Others v. Manohar Singh and Another, (2006) 6 SCC 498 where the Apex Court has held in para 17: "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 hereinbefore, 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, 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." 9. I have examined the impugned order of rejection where the learned civil court has given the reasons as follows: "I consider that if I allow the petition of the petitioner at this stage after framing of issues it will definitely change the nature and character of the suit which is not at all desirable in the present circumstances of the case as per the above decision of our hon'ble Apex Court." 10. Learned Civil Court has referred a decision reported in AIR 2009 SCW 664 where some basic principles regarding amendment has been laid down. 11. This court has taken consideration of the application for amendment (Annexure P3) filed by the petitioner. Learned Civil Court has referred a decision reported in AIR 2009 SCW 664 where some basic principles regarding amendment has been laid down. 11. This court has taken consideration of the application for amendment (Annexure P3) filed by the petitioner. From the schedule of amendment appended to the petition for amendment, it transpires that by the proposed amendment, the plaintiff sought to elaborate some pleadings by way of incorporating the paragraph as 20A and one additional prayer to the extent that a decree declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree of specific performance of contract against the defendant for sale of the suit land on receipt of the rest of the sale consideration, i.e., Rs. 9,75,000 and for execution of a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and in case of failure, the court be pleased to direct the Sub-Registrar, Sadar to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit land, under the seal and signature of that court. 12. On consideration of the rival contentions as well as the legal position as relied by the learned counsel, I am of the view that the learned civil court below did not assign any reason as to why and how the amendment would change the character of the suit. I find from the pleadings that already the plaintiff has asserted in the plaint that there has been an oral amendment and the defendant had taken an earnest money of Rs. 25,000 on condition that on payment of the remainder, the defendant would execute the required sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein. It further appears that after receipt of the written statement, the knowledge of abandoning the proposed sale of the suit land to one Nandan Lodh was gathered by the petitioner and he had filed the petition for amendment even though there is no specific averment as regards the element of diligence, but, it appears that the amendment was proposed to incorporate the subsequent event as disclosed in the written statement. 13. The scope of the amendment is unfettered when it is found that the same is required for proper adjudication of the suit. Having regard to the decisions of the Apex Court, I do not find any incongruity in the said decision. 13. The scope of the amendment is unfettered when it is found that the same is required for proper adjudication of the suit. Having regard to the decisions of the Apex Court, I do not find any incongruity in the said decision. If the additional prayer as made in the schedule of amendment is allowed, it would not change the character of the suit and it would not occasion failure of justice rather it would pave the way for proper and effective adjudication of the suit. However, in view of the principle that liberal approach has to be adopted while deciding an amendment application the possibility of prejudice to the other party is one of the consideration to be kept in mind in Fritiz T.R. Cement v. Sudhakaran Wadar, (2002) 3 SCC 605 , I am not inclined to allow the part of the amendment, proposed as paragraph 20A incorporated in the plaint. 14. The petitioner is allowed to incorporate the said additional relief (proposed as (iii)(a) in the schedule of the amendment) in the plaint. However, this would be subject to payment of Rupees Two thousand to the defendant. 15. With this observation and finding, this petition is partly allowed. 16. It is made clear that the amended plaint would be filed by the plaintiff within a period of two weeks from today in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1. _____________