JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dtd.11.8.2017 passed in Civil Suit No.103 of 1997 by the Civil Judge, Baripada has been assailed whereby and where under the petition filled by the plaintiff under Order-6, Rule-17 of the C.P.C. has been allowed. 2. The fact of the petitioner / defendant No.4 in brief is that opposite party no.1 / plaintiff has instituted a suit for declaration of his right and title being Title Suit No.103 of 1997 before the trial court arraying the petitioner as defendant no.4 praying for declaration of his rightful ownership over the suit land of schedule “A-1” property and the defendants have no manner of right, title and interest over the same and to demarcate the suit land by deputing Commissioner by the Court and if defendant Nos.1 to 6 are found to be in illegal possession of any portion of the suit land, the same be recovered and given in his possession along with prayer for permanent injunction against the defendants. The petitioner / defendant no.4 has contested the suit by filing written statement, the suit is pending for disposal since last 17 years and after lapse of such a long period, an application for amendment of pleadings under Order-6, Rule-17 of C.P.C. has been filed on the ground of rectification of some mistake reflected in the sale deed with regard to description of boundary of the suit land. The petitioner / defendant no.4 has filed his objection to such petition for amendment on the ground that such amendment was filed after commencement of trial of the suit without explaining due diligence; and that such amendment, if allowed, shall certainly change the nature and character of the suit, as such not permissible under law but the trial court, without appreciating the matter from its proper prospective, has allowed the said application for amendment vide his order dtd. 11.8.2017 which is impugned in the instant application. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant no.4 and on appreciation of his submission along with pleadings supported by annexure it is evident that the suit for declaration of right and title over the property described in schedule “A-1” has been filed in the year 1997 being Title Suit No.103 of 1997. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant no.4 and on appreciation of his submission along with pleadings supported by annexure it is evident that the suit for declaration of right and title over the property described in schedule “A-1” has been filed in the year 1997 being Title Suit No.103 of 1997. The assertions made by the plaintiff / opposite parties herein that they have purchased a piece of land measuring Ac.0.080 decimals in Mauza Bhugudakata described in Schedule “A” of the plaint from one Late Ramesh Chandra Dash & others on 23.1.1978 by a registered sale deed bearing No.269 for a lawful consideration of Rs.2,000/- and took delivery of possession of the said land on the date of sale and since that date he has been possessing the same peacefully without any obstruction from any quarter. The lands described in Schedule “A” corresponding to Sabik settlement but in the current settlement the plot number and Khata number have been changed as per Schedule “A-1” of the plaint. The plaintiff after purchase, got the suit lands demarcated by Revenue Court Amin in P.F.I. Case No.84 of 1978 and possessed the said land by putting fence on the boundary. He has also constructed a residential house on a portion of the suit land in the year 1978 and has been residing in the said house with his family members peacefully. The plaintiff is also in possession of some government vacant lands situating on the West of the purchased land and the extent of the said Government vacant land is Ac.0.050 decimals and put fence all round his purchased land as well as encroached government land. He has also constructed a house on a portion of the government encroached land and also on a portion of plot No.1068. In the current settlement, the extent of the purchased lands has been reduced to Ac.0.07 decimals as per Schedule “A-1” from Ac.0.080 decimals as per Schedule “A” and for the reduction, the plaintiff had filed a suit against the Government in Title Suit No.28 of 1989 but the said suit has been dismissed on 30.03.1996 and against the dismissal judgment and decree the plaintiff has filed Title Appeal No.31 of 1996 in the Court of the District Judge, Mayurbhanj. The defendants have also claiming a portion of Schedule “A-1” lands from the Northern side to be their lands having possessory right over t he same and constant trouble is going on for which the plaintiff wants demarcation of Schedule “A-1” lands and also wants issue of permanent injunction restraining them to claim possessory right over the same in future. The plaintiff has brought a suit in Title Suit No.88 of 1988 in the Court of Additional Munsif, Baripada against the defendants in the Suit No.103 of 1997 along with others in respect of Ac.0.080 decimals of land out of Sabik Plot No.129 towards North equivalent to Hal Plot No.493/1075 under Hal Khata No.171 measuring Ac.0.070 decimals and Hal Plot No.493/1068measuring Ac.0.00430 Barga Kadis and Plot No.443 measuring Ac.0.050 decimals. The suit ended in compromise and the defendants of Suit No.103 of 1997 had admitted there that the plaintiff had Ac.0.080 decimals land in plot No.129 and they would never claim adverse possession or easementary right over the said plot, but in spite of the said admission, the defendants are falsely claiming possessory right and interfering in peaceful possession of the suit land by the plaintiff, hence the suit has been filed praying therein to declare the plaintiff as rightful owner of the suit land and the defendants have no manner of right, title and interest over the same. 4. The present petitioner has contested the suit by filing his written statement to the effect that he has purchased the suit land from original owner defendant nos.1 to 3, denying the plaint allegation. The plaintiff has filed an application for making amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C., the amendment sought for is as under :- “After last sentence of Para-1 of the plaint the following be inserted : “In the above said registered sale deed the boundaries given towards Northern side of purchased Plot 129 land of “Durga Charan Singh” and towards Western side land of “Nij” situate are wrong. In fact towards northern side of the plot 129 (Sabik) land of Chitta Ranjan Bhujabal (land sold to Minati Pradhan) and towards Western side – Govt. Patit land which was under possession of the vendor of the plaintiff and now under plaintiffs possession situates. In fact towards northern side of the plot 129 (Sabik) land of Chitta Ranjan Bhujabal (land sold to Minati Pradhan) and towards Western side – Govt. Patit land which was under possession of the vendor of the plaintiff and now under plaintiffs possession situates. The defendant No.1 (deceased) to 2 to 5 of the suit were defendants in T.S. No.1/88 of 89/88 which was disposed of in the court of Additional Munsif, Baripada. The suit was decreed on compromise. These defendants did not dispute the boundary given in the said suit relating to the suit land which is subject matter of the suit.” The present petitioner has filed an objection to the petition filed by the plaintiff before the court below stating therein that the suit is of the year 1997, the plaintiff has filed his evidence in the form of Affidavit, since the plaintiff wants to introduce new facts by way of amendment which will change the nature and character of the suit, the same will also prolong the case and the defendant would be put in unnecessary expenditure, hence prayed for dismissal of the application. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties, has passed an order on 11.8.2017 whereby and where under the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. has been allowed on the ground that the plaintiff intends to clarify pertaining to the changes of the boundary tenants. The proposed amendment is to that effect regarding insertions of some facts, explaining changes. The proposed amendment is formal in nature and as such will not change the nature and character of the suit rather is essential for proper adjudication of this case, hence the same has been allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.200/- only which shall be paid to the Baripada Bar Association by 29.8.2017. The same is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. This court, before looking into the legality and propriety of the order dtd. 11.8.2017, thought it proper to discuss the provision of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure both the pre-amendment and post-amendment. The same is under challenge in this writ petition. 5. This court, before looking into the legality and propriety of the order dtd. 11.8.2017, thought it proper to discuss the provision of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure both the pre-amendment and post-amendment. The pre amendment provision that is before coming into effect the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 2002 which has came into effect w.e.f. 1.7.2002 the provision of Order 6 Rule 17 was :- “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties.” After coming into effect of the Amendment Act, 2002 w.e.f. 1.7.2002, the following provision has been made : “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties.; Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court comes to conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the court before commencement of the trial.” It is evident that after the amendment Act, 2002 the power to make amendment has been conferred upon the trial court subject to the condition that the court has to record its finding regarding due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial. In the judgment rendered in the case of Baldev Signh and Others Vrs. Manohar Singh and Another reported in (2006) 6 SCC 498 Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with the scope of the order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been pleased to hold at paragraph 9 that there is wide power and unfettered discretion which has been conferred on the court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such manner and on such terms as it appears to the court just and proper. While dealing with the prayer for amendment, it would also be necessary to keep in mind that the court shall allow amendment of pleadings if it finds that delay in disposal of suit can be avoided and that the suit can be disposed of expeditiously. It has further been held therein that the approach of the court should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleading unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side. In the judgment rendered in the case of Andhra Bank Vrs. ABN AMRO Bank N.V. and Others reported in (2007) 6 SCC 167 Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that delay cannot be a ground in rejecting the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the C.P.C. It is also equally settled as has been held therein that while allowing an application for amendment of pleading, the court cannot go into the question of merit of such amendment. The only question at the time of considering the amendments of pleading would be whether such amendment would be necessary for decision of the real controversy between the parties in the suit. It is, thus evident that the provision as contained under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. deals with amendment of pleadings which provides that the court may at any stage of proceeding allow either party to alter or amend the pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and all such amendment shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. It is evident from the provision of Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. that it consists of two parts, the first part is that the court may at any stage of proceeding allow either party to amend the pleadings and the second part is that such amendment shall be made for the purpose of determining the real controversy raised between the parties. It is further evident from the said provision that the court may allow amendment if it is satisfied that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. It is further evident from the said provision that the court may allow amendment if it is satisfied that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. So far as the fact of the instant case is concerned, it is evident from the plaint that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of right and title over a piece of land measuring Ac.0.080 decimal in Mouza Bhugudakata as described in Schedule “A” of the plaint which has been purchased by him from one late Ramesh Chandra Dash and others on 23.1.1978 by a registered sale deed. The land described in Schedule “A” correspond to Sabik settlement but in the current settlement, the plot number and khata number have been changed as per schedule “A-1” of the plaint. It is further evident from the copy of the plaint which has been annexed to writ petition that the plaintiff has brought a suit in Title Suit No.88 of 1988 in the Court of the Additional Munsif, Baripada against the defendants along with others in respect of Ac.0.080 decimal of land out of Sabik Plot No.129 towards North equivalent to Hal Plot No.493/1075 under Hal Khata No.171 measuring Ac.0.07 decimals and Hal Plot No.493/1068 measuring Ac.0.00430 Barga Kadis and Plot No.443 measuring Ac.0.050 and the said suit ended in compromise and the defendants admitted there that the plaintiff had Ac.0.080 decimals of land in Plot No.129 and they would never claim adverse possession or easementary right over the said plot, but in spite of the said admission, the defendants are falsely claiming possessory right and are interfering in the peaceful possession of the suit land by the plaintiff and against that portion of land the present suit has been filed. It is thus evident that parties were knowing about the position of the land including the petitioner / defendant no.4. The defendant no.4 has filed written statement wherein the statement regarding conclusion of Trial Suit No. 88 of 1988 which has been ended in compromise has not been controverted by him. It is evident from the petition filed by the plaintiff before the Trial Court under Order-6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. that the plaintiff had purchased the suit land by registered sale deed No.269 dtd. It is evident from the petition filed by the plaintiff before the Trial Court under Order-6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. that the plaintiff had purchased the suit land by registered sale deed No.269 dtd. 23.01.1978 from Brajeswari Dash and other followed by delivery of possession, described in Schedule “A” of the plaint. He has purchased and possessed over Ac.0.080 decimals of land but in settlement only Ac.0.07 decimal stands recorded in his name described in Schedule “A-1” of the plaint, against that also a suit was filed. In the registered sale deed dtd. 23.1.1978, boundary of the purchased plot No.129 (Sabik) has been shown as N-Durga Charan Singh, E-Road (left by Vendor), S-Niranjan Achariya and W-Nij. It has been ascertained therein that in the aforesaid deed, by mistake, to the northern and western side of the purchased land wrong boundaries are given, in fact, to the northern side, the purchased land of Cittarangan Bhujabal and towards western side Government land is there, as such the boundary given in the Schedule “A” of the plaint is correct, but no explanation is given in the body of the plaint to that effect which may create confusion in future, as such, to avoid the same, amendment is badly necessary. It is further evident from the petition under Order-6, Rule 17 that under the heading “Proposed Amendment” it has been mentioned that in the above said registered sale deed the boundaries given towards Northern side of purchased plot 129 land of “Durga Charan Singh” and towards western side land of “Nij” situate are wrong, in fact towards Northern side of the plot 129 (Sabik) land of Chitta Ranjan Bhujabal (land sold to Minati Pradhan) and towards Western side – Government Patit land which was under the possession of the vendor of the plaintiff and now under plaintiff’s possession situates and such amendment has been sought to be allowed on the basis of admission by the petitioner / defendant no.4 in the compromise decree passed in T.S. No.1/88 of 89/88 which was disposed of in the court of Additional Munsif Baripada. Thus, it is evident that the parties are well known with respect to the position of the land, rather, the plaintiff, in the body of the application, has mentioned that in order to avoid confusion he has filed this amendment petition. Thus, it is evident that the parties are well known with respect to the position of the land, rather, the plaintiff, in the body of the application, has mentioned that in order to avoid confusion he has filed this amendment petition. The description of the land given in the plaint as well as the area mentioned therein is not disputed by the petitioner / defendant no.4, rather the same has been admitted in the compromise decree passed in title suit No.1/88. In view of such factual position, the plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment sought for is to prolong the case and if it will be allowed, the same shall change the nature and character of the suit is not acceptable to this court in view of the reasoning given herein above. Further the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the court below has not recorded the reasoning as to why this has not been stated in the plaint at the time of filing of the same and that is the mandatory requirement to describe before the court regarding the fact that in spite of due diligence the statement could not have been given but since the plaintiff is not coming with new thing to be inserted to the plaint, rather as would be evident from the application under Order 6 Rule 17 filed by the plaintiff before the Trial Court that it is only to avoid the confusion, since no explanation is given in the body of the plaint regarding the extent of boundary, hence the amendment has been sought for. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter and considering the scope of provision of Order 6, Rule 17 and also considering the fact that no new fact has been sought to be inserted in the plaint, hence the other side is not going to be prejudiced in any way, has allowed the application, subject to payment of cost of Rs.200/-. In view thereof, according to the considered view of this court, no interference by this court in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted. Accordingly the CMP is dismissed.