JUDGMENT : J.K. Ranka, J. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 15.09.2012 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 4/2012, titled Dr. Sudhir Malhotra v. Ravindra Soral whereby the court, allowed the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff, Col. (Retd.) Ravindra Soral filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendant Dr. Sudhir Malhotra claiming himself to be owner of Flat No. 11/45, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant who was the owner of the Flat No. 11/47 situated just above the plaintiff's flat had without permission from the Rajasthan Housing Board and against bye laws had made certain material alteration in his flat owing to which the plaintiff's flat was under imminent danger of falling. He further asserted in the plaint that the defendant was in the process of illegally constructing a room over the garage and had constructed a space for illegally using a terrace belonging to the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff sought the defendant to be restrained by a decree of permanent injunction as claimed in the plaint. 3. The defendant submitted his written statement and refuted the allegations of the plaint and also preferred a counter claim. It was asserted by the defendant that the terrace belong to him and in accordance with rules of the Rajasthan Housing Board, the defendant had already completed the constructions. The defendant also mentioned other facts in his written statement but the same need not be dealt here for they are not necessary and germane for the resolution of the controversy involved in the present writ petition. 4. Based on the pleadings and material available on record, issues were framed and the cross-examination of the plaintiff by the defendant was completed and the case was fixed for further evidence on behalf of plaintiff's side. At this juncture, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code for amendment in the plaint. 4. Based on the pleadings and material available on record, issues were framed and the cross-examination of the plaintiff by the defendant was completed and the case was fixed for further evidence on behalf of plaintiff's side. At this juncture, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code for amendment in the plaint. It was claimed in the application that the defendant, in defiance of the order dated 08.02.20 10, had constructed a room above the garage and a door of this room was also opened over the terrace of the plaintiff and hence para No. 8A was sought to be added in the plaint and in the relief clause an addition was sought to the effect that the room above the garage made by the plaintiff may also be ordered to be demolished. 5. The defendant denied the allegations of such application moved by the plaintiff and asserted that the trial has already begun in the suit, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to amend his suit in view of the amended provisions of Civil Procedure Code. 6. The trial court by its order dated 15.09.2012 allowed the application of the plaintiff against which defendant has preferred this writ petition. 7. The main thrust of the contention of the learned senior counsel Shri A.K. Sharma representing the petitioner/defendant is that the trial court committed a serious legal mistake in over looking the amendment brought in Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code with effect from 01.07.2002 and allowing the application for amendment moved by the plaintiff. He submits that the trial in the suit had already been commenced and the plaintiff had already been cross-examined. He submitted that the room was not made by the plaintiff after the order dated 08.02.2010 but was completed prior to such order and the trial court committed grave error in opining that the same was made in defiance of order dated 08.02.2010. He further submits that the defendant had already clarified this state of affairs in his written statement and according to him, the amendment sought for entirely changed the nature of the suit and as such the application of the plaintiff deserve to be rejected but the trial court contrary to legal principles, committed serious illegality in allowing such application. He further submits that the defendant had already clarified this state of affairs in his written statement and according to him, the amendment sought for entirely changed the nature of the suit and as such the application of the plaintiff deserve to be rejected but the trial court contrary to legal principles, committed serious illegality in allowing such application. He submits that once issues have been framed in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 trial has begun/commenced. Counsel for the petitioner/defendant relied upon the judgments in Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand, 2008 (2) ACJ 496 (S.C.) : 2008 (3) CivCC 490 (S.C.) : 2008 (3) SCC 490, Vidyabai & Ors. v. Padmalatha & Anr., 2009 (1) ACJ 689 (S.C.) : 2009 (1) CivCC 798 (S.C.) : 2009 (1) SCC 798, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Union of India and Another, 2011 (12) SCC 268 , Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, 2005 (2) ACJ 492 (S.C.) : 2005 (3) CivCC 420 (S.C.) : 2005 (6) SCC 344 and J. Samuel and Ors. v. Gattu Mahesh and Ors., 2012 (1) ACJ 521(S.C.) : 2012 (2) CivCC 252 (S.C.) : 2012 (2) SCC 300 . 8. Per contra, learned counsel Shri A.C. Upadhyay appearing for respondents submits that the order passed by the trial court was just and proper. The amendment was necessitated in view of subsequent events and was necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties and there was no legal impediment in allowing an amendment even after the commencement of trial. In support of his claim, counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgments in Abdul Rehman & Anr. v. Mohd. Ruldu & Ors., 2012 (4) CivCC 584 (S.C.) : 2012 (3) ACJ 592 (S.C.) : 2012 (11) SCC 341 , Jai Prakash Gupta (Dead) Through Lrs. v. Riyaz Ahamad & Anr., 2009 (10) SCC 197 , Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. v. K.K. Modi & Ors., 2006 (2) ACJ 583 (S.C.) : 2006 (3) CivCC 57 (S.C.) : 2006 (4) SCC 385 , Baldev Singh & Ors. v. Manohar Singh & Anr., 2006 (3) ACJ 17 (S.C.) : 2006 (3) CivCC 57 3 (S.C.) : 2006 (6) SCC 498 , Pratap Rai Tanwani & Anr. v. Uttam Chand & Anr., 2004 (2) ACJ 391 (S.C.) : 2004 (8) SCC 490 , Pradeep Singhvi & Anr. v. Manohar Singh & Anr., 2006 (3) ACJ 17 (S.C.) : 2006 (3) CivCC 57 3 (S.C.) : 2006 (6) SCC 498 , Pratap Rai Tanwani & Anr. v. Uttam Chand & Anr., 2004 (2) ACJ 391 (S.C.) : 2004 (8) SCC 490 , Pradeep Singhvi & Anr. v. Heero Dhankani & Ors., 2004 (13) SCC 432 , North Eastern Railway Administration v. Bhagwan Das (D) by L.Rs., 2008 (3) CivCC 226 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2139 , Gulam Shah v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2009 WLC (Raj.) UC 752. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material available on record and perused the impugned order. The only point for consideration in this writ petition is whether the respondents herein, (plaintiff in the suit) have made out a case for amendment of the plaint in terms of Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code or not. Before considering the factual details and the material placed praying for amendment of their plaint, it is useful to refer Order 6 Rule 17 which reads as under: "17. Amendment of pleading - The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading 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 question 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 inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." 10. It is clear that parties to the suit are permitted to bring forward amendment of their pleadings at any stage of the proceeding for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between them. The courts have to be liberal in accepting the same, if the same is made prior to the commencement of the trial. If such application is made after the commencement of the trial, in that event, the court has to arrive at a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 11. If such application is made after the commencement of the trial, in that event, the court has to arrive at a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 11. The original provision was deleted by Amendment Act 46 of 1999, however, it has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being 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. The above proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. At present, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, it could not have been sought earlier. The object of the rule is that courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The Apex Court, in a series of decisions has held that the power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceeding in the interest of justice. The main purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation and the plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. The above principles have been reiterated by the Apex Court in J. Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh, 2012 (1) ACJ 521 (S.C.) : 2012 (2) CivCC 252 (S.C.) : 2012 (2) SCC 300 and Ramesh kumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports (P) Ltd., 2012 (2) CivCC 293 (S.C.) : 2012 (2) ACJ 071 (S.C.) : 2012 (5) SCC 337 . 12. In the case of Ramesh kumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports Private Limited & Ors. (supra), the Apex Court has held as under: "In Rajkumar Gurawara v. S.K. Sarwagi & Co. (P) Ltd., 2008 (14) SCC 364 , this Court considered the scope of amendment of pleadings before or after the commencement of the trial. 12. In the case of Ramesh kumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports Private Limited & Ors. (supra), the Apex Court has held as under: "In Rajkumar Gurawara v. S.K. Sarwagi & Co. (P) Ltd., 2008 (14) SCC 364 , this Court considered the scope of amendment of pleadings before or after the commencement of the trial. In para 18, this Court held as under: (SCC p.369) "It is settled law that the grant of application for amendment be subject to certain conditions, namely, (i) when the nature of it is changed by permitting amendment; (ii) when the amendment would result in introducing new cause of action and intends to prejudice the other party; (iii) when allowing amendment, application defeats the law of limitation." In Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswami & Sons, 2009 (10) SCC 84 , the Apex Court once again considered the scope of amendment of pleadings. In para 63, it concluded as follows : (SCC p. 102) Factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with applications for amendments 63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive." 13. It is clear that while deciding the application for amendment ordinarily the court must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide and dishonest amendments. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive." 13. It is clear that while deciding the application for amendment ordinarily the court must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide and dishonest amendments. The purpose and object of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, but the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper-technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule, particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. Normally, amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations. 14. Keeping the above principles in mind when the facts of the instant case are scrutinized, it comes out that the plaintiff had sought prohibitory injunction against the defendant in the suit. It is claimed in the amendment application that in defiance of the order dated 08.02.2010, the plaintiff has constructed a room over the garage and that was sought to be demolished. The defendant denies such allegation and on the contrary asserts that the construction was made prior to filing of the suit. The trial court allowed the amendment sought opining that the construction was made after the orders of the temporary injunction. In the humble opinion of this court the trial court has rightly allowed the amendment, for it neither changed the nature of the suit nor it could be termed as resiling from any earlier admission. It as necessary to minimise the litigation between the parties. Further, it was not the plea of the defendant that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by limitation. The issue raised through the amendment could also be raised by the plaintiff by way of a separate suit on the date of filing of such application. The proposed amendment to include a relief of demolition of the room, which according to the plaintiff was constructed after the stay order, does not change the nature of the suit for permanent injunction. A change in the nature of relief claimed, cannot be considered as a change in the nature of the suit. The proposed amendment to include a relief of demolition of the room, which according to the plaintiff was constructed after the stay order, does not change the nature of the suit for permanent injunction. A change in the nature of relief claimed, cannot be considered as a change in the nature of the suit. The power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interest of doing full and complete justice between the parties. The same view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Abdul Rehman's case (supra). But the opinion expressed by the trial court that construction was made by the defendant after the stay order, was unwarranted. Such opinion could only be formed after completion of the trial and at the time of final adjudication after properly appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence led by the rival parties. The view expressed by the trial court amounted to pre-judging the matter at the stage of amendment in pleadings which is uncalled for. 15. As a result, the order of the trial court as far as allowing the application of amendment moved by the plaintiff respondents is concerned, is hereby confirmed but it is reiterated that the question whether the construction was made prior to the institution of the suit as alleged by the defendant respondent or after passing of the stay order, shall be adjudicated by the trial court after the completion of trial and at the time of final adjudication, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence of the rival parties, without being influenced by any observations in the order passed on 15.09.2012. It is further clarified that the defendant, if so desires, shall have every right to present his amendment/written statement only upto the extent of amendment made in the plaint, if not presented till yet. It is being stated that as cross-examination of the plaintiff has been completed, the defendant would not be able to further cross-examine the plaintiff on the amendment. In order to do complete justice and strike a balance between the parties it is further directed that, if the defendant so desires, he shall be entitled to further cross- examine the plaintiff but only upto the extent of the amendment made in the plaint and not beyond that. The plaintiff, if so desires, may also present his additional affidavit of evidence upto the extent of amendment before his cross-examination. 16. The plaintiff, if so desires, may also present his additional affidavit of evidence upto the extent of amendment before his cross-examination. 16. It is also noticed that the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 13.07.2012 in SLP (Civil) No. 18862/2012 directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within a period of six months, however since more than one year has passed on account of an interim order dated 28.09.2012 by this court, therefore, in the changed situation, the trial court is now directed to dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the above directions, the writ petition as well as stay application stand disposed of.