JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K. Rath, J. - In this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed, inter alia, to quash the order dated 20.3.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jajpur Road in Civil Suit No. 90 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, the learned trial court rejected the application of the petitioners for amendment of the plaint. The petitioners as plaintiffs laid a suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction against the defendants in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jajpur Road, which is registered as Civil Suit No. 90 of 2008. During pendency of the said suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order-6, Rule- 17 of the CPC (in short 'the C.P.C.') for amendment of the plaint by incorporating certain facts. By way of amendment, the petitioners wanted to incorporate that in the year 1960, the then owner of the suit land, namely, Manjari Munda, to meet her legal necessity, alienated the suit schedule property to plaintiff No. 1 and his elder brother for a consideration of Rs. 1200/- and delivered possession, but then sale deed could not be registered in favour of the vendees due to her personal problem. It is further stated that on 15.10.1965, the said Manjari Munda sold an area of Ac. 1.00 land from out of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff No. 1 and his brother by means of a registered sale deed bearing No. 6732. On 16.7.1966 she executed another registered sale deed bearing No. 4791 in favour of plaintiff No. 1 and his brother. It is further stated that by the time the registered sale deed was executed, there was no restriction u/s 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act to transfer the land. 2. The opposite parties-defendants filed objection to the said petition stating therein that the proposed amendment would change the nature and character of the suit and it would constitute a new cause of action. The learned trial court rejected the application holding, inter alia, that hearing of the suit has already begun. The learned trial court further held that issues have been settled and no witnesses have been examined. The learned trial court rejected the application holding, inter alia, that hearing of the suit has already begun. The learned trial court further held that issues have been settled and no witnesses have been examined. The learned trial court further came to hold that the proposed amendment will materially alter the facts of the case and also substitute one cause of action with another. 3. I have heard Mr. P.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. L. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties. Mr. P.C. Mishra submits that the proposed amendment is formal in nature and the same will not change the nature and character of the suit. He further submits that hearing of the suit has not been begun and the opposite parties-defendants will be in no way prejudiced, if the amendment is allowed. Shri L. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties supports the order passed by the learned court below and submits that as per the Order-6, Rule- 17 of the C.P.C., the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party. 4. Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. postulates as follows:- 17. Amendment of pleadings: The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions 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 in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 5. After having a survey of the earlier decisions, the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others, in paragraph-63 held as follows:- 63. 5. After having a survey of the earlier decisions, the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others, in paragraph-63 held as follows:- 63. On critically analyzing 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. 6. On the anvil of the decision cited supra, let me examine the proposed amendment. Issues have been settled, but no witnesses have been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. The proposed amendment is elucidation of facts. The same will no way prejudice to the defendants, nor will constitutionally and fundamentally change the nature and character of the suit. In view of the same, the order dated 20.3.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jajpur Road in Civil Suit No. 90 of 2008 is quashed. The application for amendment filed by the petitioners is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/-(Two thousand) to the opposite parties within four weeks from today. The writ application is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed