Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. This revision petition under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act has been preferred by the revision applicant-defendant against the order dated 24.09.2013 passed by Judge, Small Causes, Unnao in SCC Suit No. 1 of 2010 whereby application seeking amendment in the plaint moved by the opposite party-plaintiff was allowed. 2. The facts of the case, in short, are that the opposite party- plaintiff filed a SCC Suit for eviction and recovery of rent on 01.02.2010 with the allegations that plaintiff is the owner of four shops situate at house no.14/15, Rajdhani Marg, Kasba Shuklaganj, Nagar Palika Parishad, Gangaghat, Tehsil and District Unnao and that the defendant is the tenant of four shops since October, 1994 on monthly rent of Rs.2000/- and that since November, 2009 to January, 2010 the defendant has not paid rent as such she is liable to be evicted and further that a decree is also liable to be passed against her for payment of arrears of rent. 3. In para 3 of the plaint it was averred by the plaintiff that the space where at present four shops as described in para 1 of the plaint and another shop on the eastern side of the said four shops which is in the tenancy of one Ashok Kumar Awasthi, there existed a godown which was in the tenancy of M/s BPL India Limited. In para 4 of the plaint, it was also stated that after getting the godown, which was tenancy in M/s BPL India Limited, demolished she got four shops and another shop on the eastern side which is in the tenancy of one Sri Ashok Kumar Awasthi constructed in the year 1993. 4. A written statement was filed by the defendant denying the plaint allegations. The evidence in the form of affidavit was also filed by the plaintiff on 23.09.2011. The said evidence with the plaint has been annexed as annexure 5, which is part of record of the present revision petition, perusal of which reveals that plaint allegations have been reiterated verbatim. 5. It is also not in dispute that on 23.11.2012 the plaintiff was cross examined. After cross examination of the plaintiff, application seeking certain amendments in paras 3 and 4 of the plaint appears to have moved on 19/23.01.2013. 5. It is also not in dispute that on 23.11.2012 the plaintiff was cross examined. After cross examination of the plaintiff, application seeking certain amendments in paras 3 and 4 of the plaint appears to have moved on 19/23.01.2013. In the plaint it was stated by her that she got constructed all the five shops after getting the godown, which was in the tenancy of M/s BPL India Limited, demolished whereas by way of amendment she intended to state that godown existed only on the space where earlier four shops existed excluding the shop in the tenancy of Ashok Kumar Awasthi. In the plaint it was stated that plaintiff got constructed all the five shops in the year 1993 whereas by way of amendment it was intended to state by the plaintiff that she got only four shops constructed in the year 1993. 6. An objection was filed by the defendant to the aforesaid application seeking amendment stating therein that amendment sought is not bonafide as it has been filed only with a view to defeat another suit i.e. SCC Suit No.9 of 2011 filed by the plaintiff's son against the husband of defendant. It was also averred by the defendant in her objection that the proposed amendments cannot be said to have resulted on account of typographical error. It was also pleaded by the defendant that since trial of the suit has commenced and further that since statement of plaintiff as PW-1 as she has been cross examined on 23.11.2012 as such at this stage amendment in the plaint cannot be legally permitted to be made. 7. Learned trial court below, however, considering the application for amendment and the objections allowed the amendment application by means of order dated 24.02.2013 stating therein that if any amendment is allowed for the purposes of correcting typographical error, then the same does not result in changing the nature of the suit. It is this order dated 24.02.2013, that is under challenge in the present revision petition. 8. Vehemently arguing on behalf of the revision applicant -defendant, Sri Shafiq Mirza has submitted that the impugned order is absolutely unlawful for the reason that it has completely ignored the provisions contained in proviso appended to Rule 17 of Order VI of Code of Civil Procedure inasmuch as no finding in terms of said provisions has been recorded by the learned trial court. He has further argued that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC puts a bar on any amendment if the trial has commenced unless the court concerned concludes that despite due diligence the parties concerned could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Sri Mirza has submitted that kind of amendment in paras 3 and 4 of the plaint which was sought by moving application by the plaintiff was not such which could not have been raised by the plaintiff before the commencement of trial. He has also argued that in any case learned trial court below has not given any finding that in spite of due diligence the plaintiff could not have raised the matter which was sought to be raised by way of amendment before the commencement of trial. 9. Placing reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vidyabai and others vs Padmalatha and another reported in 2009 (1) ARC 663, Sri Mirza has submitted that in absence of any finding in terms of proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, the trial court has absolutely erred in law and has committed jurisdictional error which is manifest on the face of the order under challenge itself. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for plaintiff-opposite party, Sri Subhash Vidyarthi has submitted that in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Bakshi and others vs Dharam Dev and others reported in 2002 (20) LCD 529, order allowing amendment of pleadings is not revisable, as such the instant revision petition is not maintainable. He has further argued by citing the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others vs K.K.Modi and others reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 385 that the object of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is that the courts should try the merits of the case and should consequently allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy. 11. Laying emphasis on another judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Peethani Suryanarayana and another vs Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore and others reported in (2009) 11 Supreme Court Cases 308, Sri Vidyarthi has stated that amendment in the plaint can be allowed even after passing of the final decree. 11. Laying emphasis on another judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Peethani Suryanarayana and another vs Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore and others reported in (2009) 11 Supreme Court Cases 308, Sri Vidyarthi has stated that amendment in the plaint can be allowed even after passing of the final decree. He has further stated that all the amendments that are necessary for determining the real question in dispute should be allowed and that the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is not an impediment in allowing amendment application if it is otherwise liable to be allowed. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in the case of Ram Asare vs Gyan Babu and others reported in 2006 (4) AWC 3822 . 12. Placing reliance on yet another judgement of this Court in the case of Rajendra Shanker Tripathi vs Ajay Kumar Gupta reported in 2011 (29) LCD 757, Sri Vidyarthi has submitted that the provisions contained in Order VI Rule 17 cast duty on the court to allow amendments which are necessary for determining the real question of dispute between the parties. 13. Having heard learned counsel for respective parties and gone through the record, question which emanates for determination in the instant revision petition is as to whether the order passed by the trial court assailed herein can withstand the provisions contained in the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. 14. The central legislature after taking into consideration the experience of working of CPC brought in various amendments in Civil Procedure Code with a view to make procedures followed in our courts in civil cases less cumbersome by way of enacting Act 22 of 2002. 15. Dealing with the issue as to what is the real purport of the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vidyabai and others (supra) has held that the said provision is couched in mandatory form. 15. Dealing with the issue as to what is the real purport of the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vidyabai and others (supra) has held that the said provision is couched in mandatory form. It has further been held by their lordship's of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case that jurisdiction of the court to allow amendment application is taken away unless conditions precedent are satisfied that is to say that the court must come to conclusion that in spite of due diligence the parties seeking amendment could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Considering the facts of the said case, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that parties seeking amendment had not been able to fulfill the precondition. It was also held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the date on which the issues are framed, filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of witness, would amount to commencement of the proceeding of trial. 16. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the aforesaid judgement in the case of Vidyabai and others (supra) can fruitfully be relied upon to decide the issue raised in this revision petition, which are as under:- "7. By reason of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 22 of 2002), the Parliament inter-alia inserted a proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, which reads as under: "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." It is couched in a mandatory form. The court's jurisdiction to allow such an application is taken away unless the conditions precedent therefor are satisfied, viz., it must come to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. 8. From the order passed by the learned Trial Judge, it is evident that the respondents had not been able to fulfill the said pre-condition. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is as to whether the trial had commenced or not. In our opinion, it did. The date on which the issues are framed is the date of first hearing. From the order passed by the learned Trial Judge, it is evident that the respondents had not been able to fulfill the said pre-condition. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is as to whether the trial had commenced or not. In our opinion, it did. The date on which the issues are framed is the date of first hearing. Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure envisage taking of various steps at different stages of the proceeding. Filing of an affidavit in lies of examination-in-chief of the witness, in our opinion, would amount to commencement of proceeding." 17. As regards the argument made by learned counsel for the respondent regarding maintainability of revision petition on the basis of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Bakshi and others (supra), it may be noticed that Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case has dealt with the scope of revisional jurisdiction and has stated that for the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction either of the conditions envisaged in Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso appended to Section 115 (1) of CPC should be fulfilled. In other words, revisional jurisdiction by this Court can be exercised only in case the order under revision finally disposes of suit or other proceeding, or the said order occasions a failure of justice or causes irreparable injury to the party against whom the order is passed. 18. Section 115 (3) of Code of Civil Procedure in its application in the State of U.P runs as under:- "(3) The superior court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made except where- (i) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding; or (ii) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it is made." Thus, what needs to be seen is as to whether the order under revision in the instant case falls within the scope of Section 115 (3) of CPC. 19. It is noteworthy that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Bakshi and others (supra) has nowhere held that the order allowing amendment is not revisable and the order refusing amendment in certain situation may be revisable. 20. 19. It is noteworthy that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Bakshi and others (supra) has nowhere held that the order allowing amendment is not revisable and the order refusing amendment in certain situation may be revisable. 20. As far as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondent on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others (supra) is concerned, it may be noticed that though the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC has been noted by their lordship's in the said case but the issue relating to the principle that amendment cannot be allowed after trial has commenced unless the court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence the party seeking amendment could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial has not been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 21. Dealing with the next argument of learned counsel for respondent based on judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Peethani Suryanarayana and another (supra), it may again be observed that in the said judgement itself it has been held that jurisdiction of the court to allow such an application for amendment is circumscribed by two factors (i) that the application must be bonafide and the same should not cause injustice and further it should not affect the rights already accrued to the defendants. The said case also does not discuss or lays down any principle of law relating to proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court in this very judgement has, on the other hand, laid down that the application seeking amendment must be bonafide and thus, if any such application is moved for any ulterior purposes (as has been done in the instant case to defeat the claim in another suit), such an application ought to be rejected. 22. Reliance placed by Sri Vidyarthi on the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others (supra) also does not help him for the reason that the said judgement does not discuss the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. 23. 22. Reliance placed by Sri Vidyarthi on the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others (supra) also does not help him for the reason that the said judgement does not discuss the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. 23. As far as the judgement of this Court in the case of Ram Asare (supra) is concerned, it is observed that this Court in the said judgement has only stated that all the amendments that are necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties should be allowed and that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC cannot be taken to be an impediment in allowing application seeking amendment, if the application is otherwise liable to be allowed. 24. What is noticeable in this judgement is that Hon'ble Single Judge has observed that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC does not act as an impediment if the application is otherwise found liable to be allowed. In the instant case, it is to be noticed that application seeking amendment was admittedly moved after the evidence on behalf of plaintiff was filed and she was cross-examined, that is to say, application was filed only after commencement of the suit. Thus, it was incumbent upon the learned court below to have given a finding in terms of proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to the effect that plaintiff could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial despite due diligence. 25. In absence of any such finding it can safely be held in the instant case that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the actual purport of the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. A perusal of order under challenge reveals that the learned court below has not mentioned or taken into consideration effect of the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. He has allowed the application for amendment only on the ground that by correcting clerical mistake in the plaint the nature of suit does not change. 26. A perusal of order under challenge reveals that the learned court below has not mentioned or taken into consideration effect of the proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. He has allowed the application for amendment only on the ground that by correcting clerical mistake in the plaint the nature of suit does not change. 26. In view of the above discussion, I am of considered opinion that the learned court below was mandated by Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to have given a finding in terms of proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for the reason that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vidyabai and others (supra) has held that the said proviso is mandatory in nature. Further, it may also be noticed that the learned court below has completely failed to appreciate that by allowing amendment application the pleadings made in the plaint have been changed even contrary to the evidence in the form of affidavit filed by the complainant. Order under challenge also does not give any finding on the objections raised by the defendant that application for amendment was not bonafide for the reason that it was moved only to defeat the other suit, namely, SCC Suit No. 9 of 2011. 27. The discussion made above and the regard being given to law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vidyabai and others vs Padmalatha and another reported in 2009 (1) ARC 663 convince the Court that the impugned order passed by the court below cannot be legally permitted to be sustained and this revision petition deserves to be allowed. 28. The revision petition, thus, is allowed and the order dated 24.09.2013 passed by Judge, Small Causes, Unnao in SCC Suit No. 1 of 2010 is hereby set aside. The court below is directed to reconsider the application moved by the plaintiff in the light of the observations made hereinabove in this judgement. The application shall be decided by the court below expeditiously, say within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 29. There will be no order as to cost. ___________________