Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J (Oral) Heard. 2. The complaint herein is that an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed by learned trial court without application of mind. 3. The plaintiff has filed suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of 1/6th share of land comprised in Khata No. 48, Khatauni No. 68, Khasra Nos. 362, 456, 460, 479, 482, 678, 455 and 459 as well as one house comprising three bed rooms, one store, one kitchen, one bathroom, two toilets constructed over Khasra No. 460. The path shown in the site plan as well as 2/7th share in land entered in Khata No. 49, Khatauni No. 71, Khasra No. 483 is also in his ownership and possession. The suit property is situated in Mohal Baryal Behar, Tehsil Rakkar, District Kangra, H.P. The gift deed of the suit land executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 1(defendants in the trial Court) is stated to be illegal, null and void. By way of permanent prohibitory injunction, the defendants have also been sought to be restrained from blocking the path and causing interference in the suit land. Mandatory injunction, directing thereby the defendants to restore the path, in case the same is found to have blocked by them during the pendency of the suit has also been sought. 4. On completion of the pleadings in the suit, learned trial Judge has framed the issues and the same is presently at the stage of recording plaintiffs’ evidence. Statements of four witnesses of the plaintiff have already been recorded. 5. In the application, Annexure P-2, it has been urged that during the course of hearing in the suit, when the defendants started raising construction near the house of the plaintiff and when he objected to the construction being raised by them, it transpired that they were raising construction over land bearing Khasra No. 479, whereas, he was under the impression that it is his house, which is in existence over this land. Therefore, he visited the Patwari concerned, who in turn apprised him that he has been wrongly informed about his house in existence over Khasra No. 479 and that the same as a matter of fact is over Khasra No. 460. Therefore, he visited the Patwari concerned, who in turn apprised him that he has been wrongly informed about his house in existence over Khasra No. 479 and that the same as a matter of fact is over Khasra No. 460. This development has necessitated the amendment of the plaint. 6. The defendants in reply to the application have come forward with the version that the house of the plaintiff is neither over Khasra No. 479 nor Khasra No. 460. The house of defendant No. 2 is stated to be in existence over Khasra No. 460, which is stated to be in possession of one Surjeet Singh. The plaintiff allegedly added a kitchen, toilet and ‘Palli’ of his house in the year 2006 by way of encroachment over land bearing Khasra No. 460, despite protest from the side of defendant No.2. 7. Learned trial Judge after having taken into consideration the pleadings of the parties on both sides has dismissed the application on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to approach for amendment in the plaint well before the commencement of trial. 8. True it is that in a normal course amendment in the pleadings can be sought by the parties on either side well before the commencement of trial. In a civil suit, the trial commences with the settlement of issues. Here, in the case in hand, after the settlement of issues, the case presently is at the stage of recording plaintiffs’ evidence. As per the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the amendment of the pleadings can even be allowed after commencement of trial also, however, if the Court is satisfied that the party has failed to do so after having due diligence. 9. In the case in hand, the amendment being sought is formal in nature. As a matter of fact, by way of amendment, the plaintiff intends to claim that his house is in existence over land bearing Khasra No. 460 and not over Khasra No. 479. The explanation, therefor as forthcoming is that the Patwari concerned had wrongly supplied wrong Khasra number over which his house is in existence, qua which he was informed by the present incumbent posted as Patwari in their patwar circle. He had an occasion for holding inquiry in this regard when the defendants started raising construction over the land bearing Khasra No. 479. He had an occasion for holding inquiry in this regard when the defendants started raising construction over the land bearing Khasra No. 479. The explanation as forthcoming is absolutely plausible as the plaintiff had nothing to achieve by mentioning wrong khasra number over which his alleged house was in existence in the plaint. The present, as such, is a case where after having due diligence, the plaintiff has failed to mention correct khasra number, over which his alleged house is stated to be in existence. The judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CMPMO No. 419/2015, titled Mehar Singh alias Mahant Ram through his LR’s Pali Devi and others V. Gurdev Singh and others, decided on 12th May, 2016 is distinguishable on facts. 10. Therefore, for all the reasons hereinabove, I allow this petition. Consequently, the plaintiff is permitted to substitute figure ‘479’ in 7th line of head note of the plaint and 10th line of para 3 thereof with figure ‘460’. The amended plaint, the certified copy whereof is Annexure P-1 to this petition, filed in the trial Court, be taken on record. Learned trial Judge shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law from the stage of allowing the defendants to file written statement to the amended plaint. The plaintiff shall pay Rs.2,000/- as costs to the defendants in the trial Court on the next date. 11. The parties through learned counsel representing them are directed to appear in the trial Court on 10th April, 2017. An authenticated copy of this judgment be sent to learned Court for records and compliance.