ORDER 1. The orders dated 29.8.2012 passed on three applications in O.S.No.342/1997 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Chitradurga are challenged in these writ petitions. 2. The respondents instituted O.S.No.342/1997 for declaration and injunction against the petitioner. The petitioner contested the suit. In the said proceedings, three applications were preferred by the respondents, one under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to amend the plaint, the second application was under Order VI Rule 14(d) read with Section 151 CPC seeking for condonation of delay in filing the application and the third application was under Order XI Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC to call for the records and documents from Chitradurga Taluk office. These applications were resisted by the petitioner. After hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge by three different orders dated 29.8.2012 allowed the applications and the said orders are impugned in these writ petitions. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that these applications were barred by limitation as the same were filed on 20.6.2011, after 14 years from the date of institution of the suit and the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the question of limitation while allowing the application. Further, it was contended that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC places an embargo to move for an amendment of pleadings subsequent to the commencement of trial, the amendment sought for by the plaintiff changes the nature of the suit itself. It is argued that the plaintiff’s father originally was appointed as Kavaldar to manage the suit schedule property and subsequently, plaintiff continued to cultivate the suit schedule property on behalf of the respondent as kavaldar and he had no right, title over the suit schedule property. Further contentions of the petitioner are that the plaintiff originally filed the suit claiming his right as the cultivator of suit schedule property acquired through Swamiji’s agent based on a letter said to have been issued on behalf of defendant/mutt stating that instead of giving 1½ anna and 2 sares of food grains per day for the livelihood of kavaldar’s family, the kavaldar family shall cultivate the suit schedule property at their own cost and utilize the yield for their livelihood. The trial Judge allowing the amendment to the plaint as well as the other two applications, failed to examine the prejudice caused to the petitioner wherein the amendment sought for was a retraction from the admissions made in the plaint which is impermissible in law. The learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments: (1) Ashuthosh Chaturvedi vs. Prano Devi and Others, AIR 2008 SC 2171 (2) Bharat Karsondas Thakkar vs. M/s. Kiran Construction Co. and Others, AIR 2008 SC 2134 (3) Jagan Nath (deceased) Through LRs. vs. Chander Bhan and Others, (1988) 3 SCC 57 4. The learned counsel Sri Basavaraj Mekki appearing for the respondents supported the order passed by the learned Civil Judge and also placed reliance on the following judgments: (1) Ragu Thilak D. John vs. S. Rayappan and Others, (2001) 2 SCC 472 (2) B. Vasudeva Balegar vs. M/s. Sri Anjanaya Gas Agency, Indane Distributors and Another, ILR 2001 KAR 5655 5. After hearing the parties and perusing the material on record, it is clear that the amendment sought for by the plaintiffs is after the commencement of the trial i.e., at the stage of examination in chief of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in their affidavit accompanying the application for amendment have stated that the documents as regards the inam Deputy Commissioner orders were ascertained only with the help of their present advocate and the said documents were already got marked as Exs.P.14 to P.18 and P.25 etc. In the original prayer it was pleaded that the petitioners are not the owners of suit schedule property as no proper records were available to show that, how the khatha of these schedule properties were entered in the revenue records in the name of the petitioners. The said statements in the affidavit establishes that the plaintiffs being rustics were not able to gather the correct documents in claiming their right over the suit schedule property and it was only during evidence with the assistance of the counsel, the documents relating to the suit schedule properties were ascertained, collected and accordingly marked. 6. The said statements in the affidavit establishes that the plaintiffs being rustics were not able to gather the correct documents in claiming their right over the suit schedule property and it was only during evidence with the assistance of the counsel, the documents relating to the suit schedule properties were ascertained, collected and accordingly marked. 6. Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC does not create any absolute bar to amend the pleadings after the commencement of the trial, if it is satisfied by the Court that despite due diligence, the parties were unable to raise the matter by way of an amendment before the commencement of the trial, the Court has the power to allow the amendment application. The circumstances under which the plaintiffs with due diligence were not able to bring the necessary fact of conferring occupancy rights in favour of plaintiffs father under Inam Abolition Act, is manifest from the records. It is only after due attempts made with the assistance of their new counsel, the documents relating to the suit schedule properties from the Inam abolition Authorities were found and collected. In such circumstances, the trial Court being satisfied that with due diligence the plaintiffs who are rustics and not having proper legal assistance would not have urged the grounds of occupancy rights in the plaint, allowed the application with costs of Rs.500/. 7. Order VI Rule 17 CPC necessarily provides for amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings subject to the proviso mentioned therein. By virtue of the amendment application, the petitioner is seeking permission to add certain averments to the plaint, the substance of which is that the suit schedule lands were granted to the father of the plaintiff by the special Inam Deputy Commissioner by conferring occupancy rights under Inam Abolition Act under which they are claiming their rights as tenants. 8. Originally, the suit was filed for declaration and injunction, by filing an application for amendment, the plaintiff-respondent is asserting his rights over the property, placing reliance on the documents obtained from the Inam Abolition Authorities, which does not change the nature of the suit as such. 9. 8. Originally, the suit was filed for declaration and injunction, by filing an application for amendment, the plaintiff-respondent is asserting his rights over the property, placing reliance on the documents obtained from the Inam Abolition Authorities, which does not change the nature of the suit as such. 9. The important factors to be borne in mind while adjudicating the application seeking for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC as enunciated by the Apex Court are : (1) Whether the amendment sought for is necessary to determine the real controversy of dispute between the parties? (2) Whether the amendment affects the rights of the parties causing prejudice and hardship which cannot be compensated in terms of money? (3) Whether the application for amendment is bona fide? 10. Keeping all these factors in mind, the learned Trial Judge has considered the application and allowed the same which cannot be found fault with. To determine the real controversy between the parties, the documents which were not in the possession of the petitioner, acquired only during evidence are the necessary documents. Even if the issue of limitation arises, the amendment requires to be allowed and the plea of limitation could be made a subject matter of the issue after allowing the amendment. This view is supported by the law laid by the Apex Court in the case of Ragu Thilak D. John vs. S. Rayappan and Others, (2001) 2 SCC 472 and a similar view is also taken by this Court in the case of B. Vasudeva Belegar vs. M/s. Sri Anjanaya Gas Agency, Indane Distributors and Another, ILR 2001 KAR 5655. 11. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the question of limitation was not considered by the learned Trial Judge has no merit, since the question of limitation is left open for the petitioner to urge before the Court below even after allowing the amendment as prayed for. 12. The judgment relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner AIR 2008 SC 2134 (Bharat Karsondas Thakkar vs. M/s. Kiran Construction Co. and Others) to support his contention that the amendment sought for has changed the nature of the suit, in view of the defence stance taken by the respondent to claim a declaratory relief of title to the property, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. and Others) to support his contention that the amendment sought for has changed the nature of the suit, in view of the defence stance taken by the respondent to claim a declaratory relief of title to the property, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said judgment, the Apex Court was considering the issue of amendment application, wherein an amendment was sought for to convert a suit for specific performance of an agreement to one for declaration of title and possession. 13. In the present case on hand, there is no such change in the nature of the suit and by way of an amendment, the respondent is incorporating certain facts which he was totally ignorant about it, being a rustic and not having exposure to the legal procedures. Incorporating of these facts collected from the authorities throws much light to determine the real controversy between the parties. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, circumstances warrants allowing the amendment application. 14. In the application filed by the respondents seeking for condonation of delay in filing the documents, the respondents have explained the circumstances under which he was not able to produce the same at the time of institution of the suit. In such circumstances, the learned trial Judge considering the relevancy of the documents which are necessary to decide the dispute between the parties permitted the respondents to produce the documents. It is also held that mere allowing the application to produce the documents would not curtail the right of the petitioner to examine the veracity of the said documents during the course of cross-examination. As such, this order also cannot be found fault with. 15. The application filed by the respondents under Order 11 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC, to call for the records and documents from Chitradurga Taluk Office, necessarily requires to be allowed, in view of the contention raised by the respondents that the suit schedule property was granted to the father of the respondents under the Inam Abolition Act, during the year 195758. This would definitely facilitate the Court to arrive at a right conclusion in adjudicating the dispute between the parties. As such, the order passed by the learned Trial Judge in allowing the application does not call for any interference by this Court. 16. For the foregoing reasons, all the three writ petitions stand dismissed. This would definitely facilitate the Court to arrive at a right conclusion in adjudicating the dispute between the parties. As such, the order passed by the learned Trial Judge in allowing the application does not call for any interference by this Court. 16. For the foregoing reasons, all the three writ petitions stand dismissed. However, since the suit is of the year 1997, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. The parties shall cooperate for the early disposal of the suit.