JUDGMENT B.K. MISRA, J. The present Petitioner being the Plaintiff instituted a suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 5 of the year, 2010 for injunction simplicitor in the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Keonjhar. The Defendant in the said suit who is the father of the present Petitioner is the Opp. Party in this Writ Petition. In the said suit the present Opp. Party entered appearance & filed his written statement-cum-counter claim praying therein for restraining the present Petitioner permanently from entering into the suit schedule land except the old house standing over 3370 Sq.ft. of land where the present Opp. Party claims to be residing. It is also prayed in the counter claim to restrain the present Petitioner from making any new construction over the suit schedule land. The present Petitioner filed his written statement to the counter claim of the Defendant in the said suit. It is the present Petitioner who as Plaintiff in the Court below filed a petition under Order 5, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "C.P.C.") for incorporating certain amendments to the plaint. Objection was flied from the side of the Defendant with regard to the amendment as has been prayed for by the Plaintiff-Petitioner. The prayer for amendment of the plaint was disallowed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Keonjhar by his impugned Order Dated 28.2.2011 i.e. Annexure-6. The Plaintiff being aggrieved with the said order of rejection of his prayer for amending the plaint has approached this Court for quashing the impugned order at Annexure 5. 2. I have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as the Opp. Party. I have gone through the pleadings of the respective parties as well as the impugned order as at Annexure-6. The admitted fact which emerges is that it is the Opp. Party the father of the Petitioner, is the owner of the suit property. Though the Plaintiff-Petitioner claims that the said suit was acquired by the Opp. Party-Defendant from out of the joint family fund, it is also an admitted fact that in the mutation proceeding the suit land has been recorded in the name of the present Opp. Party. It is also admitted by the Plaintiff• Petitioner that the Opp. Party-Defendant remains in one of the room of the suit house. 3. Party-Defendant from out of the joint family fund, it is also an admitted fact that in the mutation proceeding the suit land has been recorded in the name of the present Opp. Party. It is also admitted by the Plaintiff• Petitioner that the Opp. Party-Defendant remains in one of the room of the suit house. 3. Without entering into the merits of the cases of the respective parties, suffice is to say that when an application is filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the C.P.C. the Court has to bear in mind the following aspects:- (i) Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper & effective adjudication of the case? (ii) Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide? (iii) The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (iv) Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (v) Whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature & character of the case? & (vi) 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: Above is the trite law as envisaged by the Apex Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders & Developers V. Narayanaswamy & Sons & others, 2009 (II) OLR (S.C) 815. 4. Admittedly, the parties have not yet adduced evidence in the suit in question. In the written statement-cum-counter claim the present Opp. Party-Defendant has asserted that he constructed the house over the suit land & is residing there since 1990 which is his self acquired property & is never the joint family property Jayanta Kumar Sahu Vs. Laxmidhar Sahu nor the property of the Plaintiff. But he has also admitted in his counter claim in Para-7 that the Plaintiff-Petitioner wanted to live separately from him & other family members & therefore he forced the Opp. Party for partition. In his written statement to the counter claim of the Defendant, the present Petitioner as Plaintiff though admitted that the suit property was acquired by the Defendant-Opp. Party; but when the family expanded & because of old age the Defendant-Opp. Party for partition. In his written statement to the counter claim of the Defendant, the present Petitioner as Plaintiff though admitted that the suit property was acquired by the Defendant-Opp. Party; but when the family expanded & because of old age the Defendant-Opp. Party was unable to bear the educational expenses of his sons & other house-hold expenses, he took over the management of the house & started his career as helper & became a driver later on & acquired trucks & his wife also acquired some vehicles. But the Defendant-Opp. Party on the ill-advice of some inimical person of him started creating problems for which an agreement in the year 2009 was entered into in between the parties. 5. I have perused the petition filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the C.P.C., seeking to incorporate certain amendments to the plaint & the objection filed thereto. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously contended that no new facts are being introduced in the guise of amendment of the plaint but those are elucidations of the points which have already been averred to by the present Petitioner in the plaint as well as in the written statement filed to the counter Claim of the Opp. Party & it cannot be said that the nature & character of the suit would be changed if the proposed amendments are to be allowed & the Defendant cannot be said to be taken by surprise by such amendment of the plaint. 7. After carefully examining the materials on record & after going through the application for amendment of the plaint, it appears that the apprehension of the Opp. Party that the nature & character of the suit would be changed if the proposed amendments are allowed is without any substance. The suit would remain as a suit for injunction simplicitor & whatever harassment that would be caused to the adversary can be compensated by imposition of cost or otherwise. As I find in the instant case, the amendment which has been sought for & by addition of sub-para as para 4(a) before Para-5 of the plaint are elucidation of facts which are there in the original plaint as well as in the written statement filed by the present Petitioner to the counter claim-cum-written statement filed by the Opp. Party in Civil Suit No. 5 of 2010. Party in Civil Suit No. 5 of 2010. There is no controversy with regard to the petition of law as envisaged in Order 6, Rule, 2 of the C.P.C. that the materials facts are to be pleaded & not material particulars. If materials facts are there on record, those can be supplemented during evidence by keeping in mind the aforesaid position of law. 8. The contention of the Learned Counsel appearing for the Opp. Party that by the proposed amendment since the Plaintiff-Petitioner wants to withdraw the admission of facts, the same is impermissible. But I am unable to accept this contention of the Learned Counsel for the Opp. Party as it is the settled position of law that the admission made by the parties may be withdrawn or may be explained away & therefore it cannot be said that by amendment an admission fact cannot be withdrawn. ( AIR 1983 S.C. 462 , Panchdeo Narain Srivastava Vs. Km. Jyoti Sahay & another). Similarly, on this point we can refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Gobinda Sahoo Vs. Ram Chandra Nanda & another reported in AIR 1974 Orissa, 36. The most salient factor in this case is that the parties have known the case which they are contesting & they would not be taken by surprise about the elucidation of facts which are already there in the plaint, by the proposed amendment in Para-4(a). Since in the instant case the amendment of the plaint is sought before the commencement of the hearing of the suit, the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 is not at all applicable. It is the settled position of law that an amendment Petition can be filed at any stage of the proceeding & delay is not always a factor to refuse the prayer for amendment. The, primary duty of the Court is to shorten the litigation & the Court is not required to go into the correctness or falsity of the case in me amendment. It is' also the trite law that the Court while deciding a prayer for amendment of the pleadings under Order 6, Rule 17 of the C.P.C. it should not adopt a hyper-technical approach but should take a liberal view taking into consideration the fact that the other side can be compensated with the costs. It is' also the trite law that the Court while deciding a prayer for amendment of the pleadings under Order 6, Rule 17 of the C.P.C. it should not adopt a hyper-technical approach but should take a liberal view taking into consideration the fact that the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hinder the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. The Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmade to the administration of justice & a party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, in advertence or even infractions of the Rules of Procedure. ( AIR 1989 S.C. 2206 , Owners & 'Parties interested in M.V. "Vali Pero". Vs. Fernandeo Lopez & ors. 2006 (II) OLR (S.C.) 561, Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & ors. Vs. K.K. Modi & ors. 2001 (1) OLR (S.C.) 475, Ragu Thilak D. John Vs. S. Rayappan & ors). 9. For the reasons aforesaid, I have not been able to persuade myself to accept the findings of the Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Keonjhar that the proposed amendments would change the stand of the Plaintiff & would change the nature & character of the plaint completely. 10. When no new facts are going to be introduced by incorporating the; amendments to the plaint & when the proposed amendment Md. Moinuddin Vs. P.O. Labour Court are only elucidation of some facts which are already there on record & when the Opp. Party- Defendant would not be taken by surprise in view of the written statement already filed by the Plaintiff to his counter claim, the Learned Court below should not have disallowed the prayer for amendment of the plaint. Accordingly, the impugned order at Annexure-6 is set aside. The application for amendment of the plaint as filed by the Petitioner stands allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000 (Rupees two thousand) to the Opp. Party which shall be deposited by the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of supply of certified copy of this order. In default of such payment of cost, the application for amendment of the plaint shall stand rejected. The Learned Court below shall afford opportunity to the Opp. Party in filing additional written statement is he so desires, if the amendments are carried out. 11. In default of such payment of cost, the application for amendment of the plaint shall stand rejected. The Learned Court below shall afford opportunity to the Opp. Party in filing additional written statement is he so desires, if the amendments are carried out. 11. Since the dispute is between the father & son, the Learned Trial Court is directed to resort to the provisions of Section 89 of the C.P.C. & may refer the matter to the Permanent & Continuous Lok Adalat for brining out an amicable settlement to the dispute through mediation & conciliation & resolve the dispute as early as possible. The parties are directed to co-operate with the Court to see that their dispute is resolved through the alternate dispute resolution mechanism. 12. In the aforesaid premises, the impugned Order Dated 20.09.2011 at Annexure-6 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Keonjhar is set aside & the Writ Petition stands allowed.