JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J. 1. Plaintiffs/petitioners have approached this Court assailing the order dated 17.12.2013 passed by 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun in O.S. No. 649 of 1995, Shamshad Ahmad and others vs. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authorities and others, thereby rejecting the application moved by the plaintiffs/petitioners, herein, seeking amendment in the plaint under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants/respondents, herein, for declaration that plaintiffs be declared owner of the property bearing Municipal No. 40 (present Municipal No. 119/1), Dhakpatti, Rajpur, Dehradun and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over property Municipal No.40 (Present No. 119/1) Dhakpatti, Rajpur Dehradun. Mandatory injunction is also sought to the effect that defendants be directed to restore the possession of property Schedule “A” after removing illegal/un-authorised constructions raised by the defendants. 3. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel appearing for defendants do not dispute that the properties mentioned in the plaint under Schedule “A” and Schedule “B” are part of the property having Municipal No. 40 (present Municipal No. 119/1) Dhakpatti, Rajpur, Dehradun and further do not dispute that encroachment sought to be removed is mentioned in Schedule “A.” 4. Para 37 of the plaint as originally pleaded was as under: “37. That the defendants have started using the land portion of property No. 40, Dhakpatti, Rajpur, Dehradun other than the land beneath the illegal constructions of defendant no. 1 and which is not the subject matter of Suit No. 4 of 1987 pending in the court of Addl. Civil Judge III (Senior Division) Dhradun illegally and without any authority and are trying to encroach upon the land described in schedule “B” detailed at the foot of the plaint.” 5. By way of proposed amendment, plaintiffs sought permission to delete the words “other than the land beneath the illegal constructions of defendant no. 1” and to substitute it by the words “land as detailed in the Schedule –B at the foot of the plaint”. 6. By way of proposed amendment, plaintiffs sought permission to delete the words “other than the land beneath the illegal constructions of defendant no. 1” and to substitute it by the words “land as detailed in the Schedule –B at the foot of the plaint”. 6. If amendment is allowed, para 37 of the plaint would be read as under: “That the defendants have started using the land portion of property No. 40, Dhakpatti, Rajpur, Dehradun as detailed in Schedule-B at the foot of the plaint and which is not the subject matter of Suit No. 4 of 1987 pending in the court of Addl. Civil Judge III (Senior Division) Dhradun illegally and without any authority and are trying to encroach upon the land described in schedule “B” detailed at the foot of the plaint.” 7. Thus, it can very well be said that disputed property is not going to be changed. It remains part of Municipal No.40. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the main object of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. is to place each and every fact by way of amendment before the Court of Law for the fair adjudication of the case, provided amendment does not amount to change of nature of the suit or cause of action of the suit and does not amount to withdrawing the admission already made and further does not amount to taking inconsistent pleas already taken before. 9. In the humble opinion of this Court, proviso was added in Rule 17 of Order 6 C.P.C. to avoid unnecessary delay in the disposal of the suit. Proviso indicates that parties should be vigilant at the time of filing of original pleadings so that all the necessary facts must be brought before the Court. Proviso is a check and barrier so that none of the party may take up afterthought story with ulterior motive to keep the lis pending. In the further opinion of this Court, proviso is directive in nature and should not be treated as complete ban. If delay and due diligence is properly explained and amendment seems to be just and proper for the fair adjudication of the case, it would be open to the courts to allow the same. Other party can be compensated by way of payment of cost. Hyper-technical approach should be avoided to do complete and fair justice. 10. Mr. If delay and due diligence is properly explained and amendment seems to be just and proper for the fair adjudication of the case, it would be open to the courts to allow the same. Other party can be compensated by way of payment of cost. Hyper-technical approach should be avoided to do complete and fair justice. 10. Mr. Piyush Garh, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/petitioners submits that if amendment is allowed, plaintiffs shall not be seeking any opportunity for further oral or documentary evidence nor shall seek further cross-examination of the defendants and case can very well be adjudicated on the basis of material already placed on record. 11. Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel appearing for the defendants in all fairness, for which he is known at the Bar, submits that amendment sought shall neither change the nature of the suit nor cause of action nor would amount to withdrawal of any admission made nor would amount to inconsistent plea, therefore, amendment may be allowed on payment of heavy cost. 12. Consequently, present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 17.12.2013 is set aside. Amendment Application moved by the plaintiffs is hereby allowed. Let necessary amendment be incorporated in the plaint within 14 days from today. 13. Plaintiffs shall pay Rs. 5,000/- as cost. Out of Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 2,500/- shall be paid to the State Legal Service Authority and Rs. 2,500/- shall be paid to the defendants within two weeks from today. 14. Additional written statement to the amended plaint may be filed within next one week, however, as stated by learned counsel for the parties, none of the parties shall be allowed to lead any further evidence in lieu of amendment allowed by this Court. Order accordingly.