Judgment : Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) In this petition filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, plaintiff Bago has assailed the order dated 4.10.2013, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. in CMA No. 428 of 2012 (Civil Suit No. 47/2006), titled as Bago vs. Balwan Singh. 2. In terms of the impugned order, plaintiff’s application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint stands rejected. The operative portion of the order reads as under:- “As a matter of fact, the amendment sought is that the plaintiff/applicant is an old, illiterate & rustic villager. She never executed any relinquishment deed qua her share of the suit land. She thought that the parties were co-sharers and she signed blank papers on the ground that mutual partition was being effected. From this, Court found that different plea is being taken by the plaintiff/applicant, because in original suit, she has stated that she never relinquished her share, whereas in the amendment, she has stated that she signed the papers on the pretext of mutual partition. In the suit, the case is that there was no occasion for the plaintiff/applicant to relinquish her share, because defendant/respondent was not related to her, whereas from the amendment sought, it has been found that plaintiff/applicant is aunt of the defendant/respondent, whereby it can be presumed that plaintiff/applicant previously relinquished her share and relinquishment deed was duly registered. Not only this, the amendment sought could have been taken before commencement of the trial which was not done. It is relevant to mention here that the issues were framed in the suit on 22.6.2006 and from that date, no evidence has been led till date although seven years have elapsed. The application is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/-. So far as suit is concerned, steps, if any, be taken within seven days and PWs thereafter be summoned for 01.11.2013. If steps are not taken, PWs would be produced at self responsibility and no further date would be allowed.” 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that the Court below committed serious illegality in rejecting the plaintiff’s application, more so, for the reasons assigned in the order. From the record it cannot be said that plaintiff has contributed in the inordinate delay of trial. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that the Court below committed serious illegality in rejecting the plaintiff’s application, more so, for the reasons assigned in the order. From the record it cannot be said that plaintiff has contributed in the inordinate delay of trial. No doubt issues were struck on 22.6.2006, but however, defendant filed an application under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC, which took more than three years to be decided and in the absence thereof, trial could not have proceeded. Further, trial Court could not have prejudged the issue without affording opportunity of hearing to all. Findings with regard to relinquishment of her share are uncalled for. Application for amendment can be filed and decided at any stage of the suit, including trial. Court erred in holding that such application ought to have been filed before commencement of trial. Plaintiff, in my considered view, being an old illiterate and rustic villager has explained the circumstances, necessitating amendment of plaint. It is not that she is seeking withdrawal of admission made in favour of the defendant. The amendment is only to substantiate and clarify the pleas already taken by her. She is not trying to introduce a new plea or contradict her earlier version. One of the reasons for rejecting the application is the alleged delay, on the part of the plaintiff, in leading evidence. If that were so, the Court below, ought to have closed the plaintiff’s right of leading evidence, but instead fixed a date for trial and summoned the plaintiff’s witnesses. 4. As such, for all the aforesaid reasons, impugned order dated 4.10.2013 is quashed and set aside being perverse, erroneous, illegal and not borne out from the record. Plaintiff’s application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC stands allowed with the following directions: a) Parties shall appear before the trial Court on 23rd May, 2014. b) On the said date, plaintiff shall file amended plaint, if already not filed. c) Trial Court shall afford not more than two opportunities to the defendant to file written statement to the amended plaint and for filing replication, if any, only one opportunity shall be afforded. d) Not more than two opportunities shall be afforded to the plaintiff to produce and examine her witnesses. e) Plaintiff shall pay cost of Rs.5000/- (rupees five thousand) to the defendant. d) Not more than two opportunities shall be afforded to the plaintiff to produce and examine her witnesses. e) Plaintiff shall pay cost of Rs.5000/- (rupees five thousand) to the defendant. f) Trial is expedited. Endeavour shall be made to decide the suit within a period of nine months. 5. Petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also pending applications, if any. Records be immediately returned back.