JUDGMENT Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.: - Defendants aggrieved by the amendment of the plaint permitted to be introduced by the plaintiffs invoking Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has filed the present revision. 2. A suit was filed by the plaintiffs for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to execute an agreement for sale on the basis of written receipt vouchsafing the payment of advance sale consideration on 23.2.2011. In terms thereof, it has been alleged that the defendants were bound to execute the agreement as well as sale-deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs on or before 10.3.2011. Contending that the defendants chose to deny the execution of the receipt and also express their inability to execute the sale-deed through their written statement filed on 19.9.2011, the plaintiffs had come forward with an application under Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the head-note of the plaint, prayer clause and the court-fee and jurisdiction clause in such a way that the suit is one for specific performance of the agreement for sale. 3. Trial Court adverting to the fact that the date fixed for execution of the agreement for sale as well as sale-deed had elapsed and the cause of action for the plaintiffs to pursue the necessary relief had arisen only on 13.3.2011 and 19.9.2011 when the defendants filed their written statement expressing their inability to execute the agreement for sale and the sale-deed, allowed the application for amendment. Hence, the present revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would vehemently submit referring to the decision of this Court in Mansi Devi v. Ram Kishan 2003(4) RCR(Civil) 822, that the plaintiffs were very much aware of such a relief to be sought for and therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to amend the plaint after the written statement has been filed by the defendants. 5. Under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before ever trial has commenced, the Court has the authority to allow an amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. 5. Under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before ever trial has commenced, the Court has the authority to allow an amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Even after the trial has commenced, the Court is empowered to allow amendment of pleadings when it comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party who seeks for an amendment could not have raised the issue before commencement of trial. 6. In the instant case, the trial had not begun. No prejudice is also going to be caused to the defendants in permitting the plaintiffs to amend the prayer in the plaint. Further cause of action has arisen for the plaintiffs to come out with a plea for amendment of the plaint incorporating a prayer for specific performance of the agreement for sale only when the defendants expressed their objection to execute the sale-deed through their written statement filed on 19.9.2011. Such a cause had not arisen prior to the filing of the suit. Therefore, the decision in Mansi Devi’s case(supra) which would lay down that no amendment is permissible if the facts sought to be incorporated in the pleadings by way of amendment were already available to the knowledge of the plaintiff, would not apply to the facts of this case. Further, I feel that multiplicity of proceedings could also be avoided by allowing such an amendment sought for by the plaintiffs. 7. Therefore, in my view, there is no error in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the present revision fails and it stands dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------