JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners-plaintiffs Oomkar S/o Sh. Nanda Meena, aged 67 years, Sint. Pratap Bai W/o Sh. Omkar Meena, aged 65 years, and Sh. Poora S/o Sh. Roopa Meena, aged 73 years have filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the defendants respondents Narayan Lal Meena S/o Devaji Meena, power of attorney holder, Sh. Vinod Meena, purchaser of property of the petitioners through their alleged power of attorney Narayan Lal Meena and the remaining respondents are the subsequent purchasers. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order Annex. 3, dated 13.10.2010 whereby the learned trial Court of Additional Dist. Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Udaipur rejected the plaintiffs' application seeking amendment in the plaint under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. 2. The plaintiff-petitioners have filed a suit against the defendant- respondents for cancellation of the power of attorney allegedly executed by them in favour of defendant No. I and cancellation of the sale-deeds purportedly executed by him in favour of the other defendants. The suit was filed on 25.8.2006. The present application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiffs four years after filing of the suit on 25.8.2010. The issues in the present case were framed by the learned trial Court on 6.2.2007 and after examination of seven plaintiffs' witnesses, namely, PW-1 Pratapi, PW-2 Pooraji, PW-3 Rami, PW-4 Narayan Lal, PW-6 Laxmikant and PW-7 Narayan Lal, the PW-8 Narendra Purohit was produced before the learned trial Court along with the affidavit of PW-8 Narendra Purohit on 6.3.2009. The said witness Narendra Purohit produced an Audio cassette and CD purportedly containing the recording of voice of said witness Narendra Purohit with other persons including the defendants which contained certain alleged admissions on the part of the defendants, which could vitally affect the fate of the present suit. 3. The said application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment of the plaint at this stage was strenuously opposed by the defendant before the learned trial Court and before this Court as well and the learned trial Court by the impugned order dated 13.10.2010 rejected the said application. 3. The said application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment of the plaint at this stage was strenuously opposed by the defendant before the learned trial Court and before this Court as well and the learned trial Court by the impugned order dated 13.10.2010 rejected the said application. Hence, the present writ petition was filed by the plaintiffs petitioners in this Court on 8.11.2010 in which a co-ordinate bench of this Court, vide interim order dated 15.12.2010 stayed the further proceedings of the trial of Suit No. 105/2006 and that interim order is continuing so far. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs Mr. M.C. Bhoot, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Surendra Singh urged that the said CD and cassette contained vital admissions on the part of the defendants and the transcript of the same was produced before the learned trial Court which was earlier taken on record. However, on the objection raised by the defendants, the same were removed from the record vide order dated 25.1.2010, which order of the trial Court came to be challenged by the petitioners by way of a writ petition before this Court, namely, S.B.C.W.P. No. 2062/2010, Omkar & Ors. v. Narayan Lal Meena & Ors ., which writ petition also came to be dismissed by the learned Single judge of this Court on 12.7.2010 in the following terms: "9. Indisputably, there is no provision which permits the witness to produce the documents on his own to prove the case of the plaintiff which even do not find mention in the list of documents filed by the plaintiff alongwith the plaint. In considered opinion of this Court, the witness cannot produce document on his own to prove the plaintiffs case unless summoned by the Court to produce the same in conformity with the provisions of Section 162 of the Act. If the plaintiff is permitted to produce the documents at the belated stage through the witness on the ground that the same were in his possession then the provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 as discussed above providing for filing of the documents alongwith the plaint or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed in the plaint and prohibiting the production of the documents at belated stage without leave of the Court shall stand frustrated. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the indirect method adopted by the petitioners to produce the additional evidence through the witness cannot be countenanced by the Court. In this view of the matter, in considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has committed no error in holding that the documents sought to be produced by the witness alongwith the affidavit alleging that the same were in his possession cannot be taken on record. 10. Indisputably, the documents sought to be produced alongwith an affidavit of the witness are not relied upon by the petitioners/plaintiffs in their pleading and there is absolutely no foundation of facts regarding such conversation being record in the CDs or cassettes by the said witness Shri Narendra Kumar Purohit and therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to lead the evidence to prove the facts which are beyond the pleadings. 11. Moreover, it is settled law that power of the High Court of judicial superintendence, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Further, where statute bans the exercise of revisional powers, it would require very exceptional circumstances to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, since, the power of superintendence was not being to circumvent statutory law. vide State v. Navjot Siddhu, (2003) 6 SCC p. 641 . It is merely a revisional jurisdiction and does not confer an unlimited authority or prerogative to correct all orders or even wrong decisions made within the limits of jurisdiction of the Courts below. [vide "Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar, (2002) 8 SCC 400 ] 12. vide State v. Navjot Siddhu, (2003) 6 SCC p. 641 . It is merely a revisional jurisdiction and does not confer an unlimited authority or prerogative to correct all orders or even wrong decisions made within the limits of jurisdiction of the Courts below. [vide "Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar, (2002) 8 SCC 400 ] 12. Indisputably, the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order passed by the trial Court deciding on admissibility of the documents sought to be produced by the petitioners through their witness have been filed inasmuch as, the revision petition against said order is barred in view of the amendment introduced in Section 115 C.P.C., whereby Clause (b) which enable interference in revision on the ground that an order if allowed to stand would occasion failure of justice or cause irreparable injuries to the party against whom it was made, stands deleted- and further the existing proviso to sub-section (1) stands substituted in terms that the High Court shall not under the said section vary or reverse any order made or any order deciding an issue, in course of a suit or other proceedings except where the order if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or proceedings. Obviously, the provisions of Section 115 have been amended as aforesaid to curb unnecessary protection of the litigation. Therefore, it is all the more necessary that the power of supervisory jurisdiction in the matters arising from the interlocutory orders passed by the civil Courts should be exercised sparingly with due care and caution. 13. In considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned passed by the trial Court after considering the relevant aspects of the matter does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. In view of the discussion above, the other contentions raised by the parties are not required to be gone into by this Court. 15. The writ petition lacks merit and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs." 5. Mr. M.C. Bhoot, Sr. 14. In view of the discussion above, the other contentions raised by the parties are not required to be gone into by this Court. 15. The writ petition lacks merit and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs." 5. Mr. M.C. Bhoot, Sr. Advocate therefore, submitted that in the interest of justice said CD and cassette and transcript thereof deserve to be taken on record, after allowing the amendment in the pleadings, which became necessary, as the suit in question was filed in a hurry and plaintiffs were illiterate poor people and their land was snatched way from them by dubious method. He also submitted that the said CD and cassette were in fact in the possession of police in connection with criminal proceedings initiated at the instance of plaintiffs- petitioners against the defendants in which the challan was also filed against the defendant-respondents in the competent Court on 8.11.2006 and with reference to Criminal Case Nos. 295/2006 and 296/2006, the said documents were admittedly on record of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanod in the aforesaid proceedings and it is only when they were returned back to the plaintiffs-petitioners, the same were sought to be produced by their witness PW-8 Narendra Purohit alongwith his affidavit dated 6.3.2009 and the same deserved to be taken on record and filing of the amendment application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. became necessary as the earlier taking of such transcript on record was objected by the defendants and petitioners' plea was also not accepted by this Court in view of lack of pleadings in this regard by the plaintiffs in a suit. He submitted that the truth should always prevail and truth being the guiding star in the process of any trial, the learned trial Court even at this stage of trial could not eject the said application for amendment in the plaint as mere delay cannot be fatal to such amendment in the pleadings, which goes to the root of the case. 6. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. 6. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Thanvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Narendra Thanvi strenuously urged that it was too late in the day for the plaintiffs- petitioners to move the amendment application in the year 2010 before the learned trial Court after 4 years of filing of the suit in the year 2006 and such amendment application was not only highly belated but was an afterthought and was also barred by law in view of proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C., which prohibits the amendment of the pleadings after commencement of the trial, which in the present case, commenced with the framing of issues on 6.2.2007. He submitted that surprisingly, the plaintiffs not only failed to mention anything about this CD and cassette and transcript in the suit filed by the plaintiffs on 25.8.2006, but even in the statements of various witnesses of the plaintiffs recorded by the learned trial Court, including the affidavit of plaintiff himself dated 27.3.2008, there was no mention of this material being in possession of so called witness Narendra Purohit or the police and therefore, the learned trial Court cannot be faulted in rejected the amendment in the plaint at this highly belated stage of trial and such order passed in exercise of judicial discretion by the learned trial Court does not require any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Pathak reported in 2010 AIR (SCW) 6387 . He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record, impugned order and back ground of the case. 8. It is true that the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited and very narrow. The law in this regard is fairly settled, but at the same time, the interference by this Court is not ruled out in all cases. 8. It is true that the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited and very narrow. The law in this regard is fairly settled, but at the same time, the interference by this Court is not ruled out in all cases. The background of the case in hand, where the suit has been filed for cancellation of the power of attorney itself in favour of the defendants No. I Narayan Lal Meena and for cancellation of the subsequently executed sale-deeds by him in favour of other defendants with the background of the case mentioned in the application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. casts a shadow of doubt. 9. It is true that none of the plaintiffs' witnesses examined so far by the learned trial Court uttered a word about this material including the plaintiffs PW I Pratapi and plaintiff PW-2 Pooraji, but that alone cannot stop another witness of the plaintiff PW-8 Narendra Purohit who filed his affidavit on 6.3.2009 producing therewith the said cassette and CD claiming therein that the said CD and cassette contained the voices of Narendra Kumar himself with other persons and the transcript of which was earlier produced on record by the plaintiffs but were removed from the record on the objection raised by the defendant, the challenge to which also failed before this Court vide order dated 12.7.2010 of a co- ordinate bench of this Court, but it is also seen from the averments made in the application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C., that these documents, namely, CD and cassettee were in the possession of the Court conducting the criminal trial who filed the said complaint against the defendants but since the defendants respondents were influential persons, vide para 6 of the amendment application, it is also mentioned that it is only after retirement of Ex. Dy. Inspector General of Police, Mr. Godika, who protected the defendants, the poor plaintiffs petitioners could not made available the said cassette and CD in the month of December, 2008 and the transcript of which was produced before the learned trial Court in the year 2010 but that was also removed from the record on the object on of the defendants on 25.1.2010. Godika, who protected the defendants, the poor plaintiffs petitioners could not made available the said cassette and CD in the month of December, 2008 and the transcript of which was produced before the learned trial Court in the year 2010 but that was also removed from the record on the object on of the defendants on 25.1.2010. The plaintiffs were, therefore, left with no other remedy but to seek amendment in the plaint so that the PW-8 Narendra Singh who fled his affidavit on 6.3.2009 alongwith said CD and cassette could be examined by the learned trial Court with the help of appropriate amended pleadings which could subserve the ends of justice and a fair trial in the matter could take place. 10. The opposition of the defendants, tooth and nail in the earlier round of litigation before this Court and even now and emphatic arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respondents also deserve to be examined in this light of the facts of the case. The silence of plaintiffs and their witnesses so far examined about this material is explained by the fact that these plaintiffs initiated the criminal action also against the respondents-defendants which is also said to be pending. Since, there also the said CD and cassette is stated to have so far, not been summoned by the learned Court conducting that trial and thus on both the fronts, it appears that the plaintiffs-petitioners wanted to produce the evidence which according to them is not only relevant but goes to the root of the matter and can clearly establish the mala fides of the defendants. Unless the same is take on record and examined by the Court having the jurisdiction, the fate of the trial may also be fate accomplish In such circumstances, the obvious question is whether amendment in the pleadings should be allowed to the plaintiffs or not. It is significant to mention here that while dismissing the earlier writ petition, a co- ordinate bench of this Court in para 10 quoted above had also clearly observed that the documents sought to be produced alongwith the affidavit of the witnesses are not mentioned and are not relied upon in the pleadings of the petitioners, namely, the plaint and therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to lead evidence to prove the fact which are beyond the pleadings. Truly and rightly said, but the course open to the plaintiffs thereafter was only to seek the amendment in the pleadings for which he moved after about one month of the said order of the learned Single judge of this Court on 25.8.2010."The lack of due diligence on the part of the plaintiffs as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants would pale into insignificance, if the sequence of events as narrated above are seen in correct perspective. 11. From the facts narrated above, this Court is clearly of the opinion that even at this stage, the learned trial Court ought to have applied its mind to the background of the case and then considered whether such amendment deserves to be allowed or not. Unfortunately, this consideration does not appear to have been made in the impugned order. The procedural impediments like point of time when such amendment application ought to have been filed and stage of case of course are relevant factors, but in the present case in hand, it does not appear to this Court that it is too late in the day for the plaintiffs to seek amendment at this stage. The trial is admittedly pending at plaintiffs' evidence stage only. Since 2010 of course the trial is stayed by this Court vide order dated 15.12.2010 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court. About 2 and 1/2 years have passed since then. Lest any further delay is caused in the trial, instead of sending the matter back to the learned trial Court for reconsideration of the said application, this Court is of the opinion that the amendment application deserves to be allowed by this Court. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and setting aside the impugned order dated 13.10.2010 of the learned trial Court, the amendment application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C., stands allowed. The amended plaint may be filed within 15 days from today, to which amended written statement by the defendants may be filed, if they want to file their amended written statement within next 15 days. The amended plaint may be filed within 15 days from today, to which amended written statement by the defendants may be filed, if they want to file their amended written statement within next 15 days. An advance copy of the amended plaint be supplied to the defendants' counsel on or before filing of the same before the learned trial COUP nd after taking such amended pleadings on record, the learned trial Co may proceed further from the stage where the trial was stayed by this Cour o order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned "nd the learned trial Court below forthwith.Petition Allowed. *******