JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.09.2013 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC has been accepted and plaint has been ordered to be amended in terms of the prayer made by the plaintiff, further the court has directed the amended plaint filed with the application to be taken on record. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court was not justified in accepting the application, inasmuch as, the application was highly belated. It is submitted that the amendment application has been filed on 26.09.2012 pertaining to events, which allegedly took place on 01.08.2009 and, therefore, the said amendment could not have been accepted. It is further submitted that alongwith the application, the amended plaint signed by Haji Abdul Samad was filed, however, at the point of time, when the application was allowed by the trial court, the said plaintiff had already died and, therefore, the amended plaint as filed by him could not have been ordered to be taken on record. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that so far as the event dated 01.08.2009 is concerned, the same was brought to the notice of the trial court during the hearing of temporary injunction application on 03.08.2009 itself and the present amendment application has been filed immediately after the written statement by the petitioner was taken on record, wherein the plea regarding the sequence of event, which took place on 01.08.2009 was taken and, therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff committed any delay in fling the application and the trial court committed any mistake in accepting the same. 4. Regarding the submission of signing of the amended plaint by the Haji Abdul Samad, who had died on the date, the amendment was allowed. It is submitted that the plaintiffs would file a fresh amended plaint, in case ordered by this Court. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 6. From the material available on record, it is apparent that the respondent-plaintiff filed the amendment application immediately after the written statement filed by the petitioner was taken on record, wherein the aspect subsequent to the event, which took place on 01.08.2009 was indicated. 6. From the material available on record, it is apparent that the respondent-plaintiff filed the amendment application immediately after the written statement filed by the petitioner was taken on record, wherein the aspect subsequent to the event, which took place on 01.08.2009 was indicated. The fact that the trial court in the suit has not yet begun, the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC would also not come into picture and in view thereof, it cannot be said that the trial court committed any mistake by permitting the amendment as sought by the plaintiff. 7. So far as the ground raised by the petitioner regarding taking on record of the amended plaint is concerned, the said argument has substance, inasmuch as, admittedly on the date when the order dated 25.09.2013 was passed by the trial court, the plaintiff Haji Abdul Samad was no more and, therefore, the amended plaint pursuant to the order dated 05.09.2013 could only be filed by the plaintiffs i.e. legal representatives of Haji Abdul Samad and the trial court committed mistake in taking on record the amended plaint filed with the application, which was signed by Haji Abdul Samad. 8. However, the said aspect can be taken care by ordering the respondents (now plaintiffs) to file a fresh amended plaint. 9. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner in so far grant of application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC is concerned, has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 10. However, the respondents are directed to file fresh amended plaint in terms of order dated 25.09.2013 within a period of two weeks from today.Petition dismissed. *******