JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.05.2015 passed by the land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 24 of 2013 arising out of Land Acquisition Case No.32 of 2008-09 whereby the learned court below dismissed the application of the petitioner dated 01.09.2014 filed for amendment of the application under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the CPC”). 3. The factual background of the case as stated by the petitioner is that the land of the petitioner situated at Mouza - Dhanbad, Mouza No.51, Khata No.38 (121) Plot No.1577 area 1/2 decimal, Plot No.1579 area 41/2 decimals and Plot No. 1585 area 1 decimal (hereinafter to be called the “said land”) were to be acquired for the purpose of construction of ring road by Jharia Rehabilitation and Development Authority, Dhanbad and for that purpose, a notification no.392 dated 12.05.2011 was published in the local newspaper by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. The petitioner came to know that the said land has been acquired and award no.19 for Rs.76,60,800/- has been wrongly made in favour of the private respondents. The petitioner filed objection under Section 18/30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the L.A. Act”) vide Land Acquisition Reference Case No.24 of 2013 for determination of the person who is entitled for payment of compensation and also for determination of proper compensation of the land acquired, which was subsequently referred to the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad and was registered as Reference Case No. 24 of 2013. The respondents were issued notices and in the meantime, the petitioner filed a petition for amendment in the reference application under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of the CPC stating that due to inadvertence, plot no.1585 area 1 decimal has not been included in the schedule portion. The learned Land Acquisition Judge by the impugned order dated 12.05.2015 rejected the application for amendment by holding that the petitioner is trying to incorporate such lands, which were not incorporated in the original reference. 4. The learned Land Acquisition Judge by the impugned order dated 12.05.2015 rejected the application for amendment by holding that the petitioner is trying to incorporate such lands, which were not incorporated in the original reference. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that although the court below came to the specific finding that lands under plot no.1585 is also the subject matter of the award no.19, the amendment application has been rejected on the erroneous ground that the petitioner sought to introduce the new fact, which is not permissible in law. It is further submitted that it is a settled law that the court should be liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleading unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side or on the ground that the prayer for amendment was not a bonafide one. It is further submitted that the amendment sought for adding additional relief from the same cause of action is permissible under the law. It is also submitted that the amendment was sought at a very early stage of the suit proceeding and the proposed amendment is necessary for determining the real question of controversy between the parties arising out of the same cause of action that is from Award no.19. 5. No one is present on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4 despite service of notices upon them. Vide order dated 28.06.2016, the respondent nos. 2 to 4 were provided last opportunity to appear in this case. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondent while opposing the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below rightly dismissed the amendment petition of the petitioner on the ground that by the proposed amendment, the petitioner sought introduction of a new fact, which is not permissible in law. It is further submitted that plot no.1585 was not included in the original reference application of the petitioner hence the same cannot be inserted by way of amendment. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. It is claimed by the petitioner that his land has been acquired for the purpose of construction of ring road. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. It is claimed by the petitioner that his land has been acquired for the purpose of construction of ring road. However, an award for payment of compensation in lieu of the acquisition was prepared in favour of the private respondents and as such he filed objection under Sections 18/30 of the L.A. Act. When the case was pending for appearance of the respondents, the petitioner filed a petition for amendment in the reference application stating that due to inadvertence, plot no.1585 area 1 decimal has not been included in the Schedule and as such the same may be allowed to be included. However, the said amendment application was rejected by the learned court below. 7. Before coming into the merit of the case, it would be relevant to discuss the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC substituted by Act 22 of 2002 with effect from 1st July, 2002, which reads as under :- “17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings 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 questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J. Samuel & Ors. Vs. Gattu Mahesh & Ors., reported in (2012) 2 SCC 300 , while considering the object and purpose of amended provision of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, has held as under :- “18. The primary aim of the court is to try the case on its merits and ensure that the rule of justice prevails. For this the need is for the true facts of the case to be placed before the court so that the court has access to all the relevant information in coming to its decision. Therefore, at times it is required to permit parties to amend their plaints. For this the need is for the true facts of the case to be placed before the court so that the court has access to all the relevant information in coming to its decision. Therefore, at times it is required to permit parties to amend their plaints. The court’s discretion to grant permission for a party to amend his pleading lies on two conditions, firstly, no injustice must be done to the other side and secondly, the amendment must be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. However, to balance the interests of the parties in pursuit of doing justice, the proviso has been added which clearly states that: -7- “… no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” (emphasis supplied) 9. On perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of J. Samuel (Supra), it would emerge that the primary object of the court is to decide the case on its merit and for this, it is necessary to bring the true facts before the court and thus the court has the discretion to grant permission to a party to amend his pleadings primarily on two conditions; firstly no injustice is done to the other side and secondly the amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. However, to maintain the parity between the parties, the proviso of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is of vital importance, which specifically provides that no application for amendment should be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial. In the present case, it is evident from the reference application of Land Acquisition Reference Case No.24 of 2013 that in para 3 itself, there was incorporation of the details of plot no.1585 area 1 decimal with an averment that the land has been morefully described in the Schedule below, however in the schedule, there is no mention about the plot no.1585 area 1 decimal, which appears to be missing due to inadvertence. The petitioner, immediately after realizing the said mistake, filed an amendment application even before the appearance of the respondents, which shows his due diligence in the matter. It is also apparent that the learned court below, in the impugned order, has observed that the plot no.1585 area 1 decimal was also the part of the award no.19. It is claimed by the petitioner that he has acquired the said land by virtue of a registered gift deed and he was in possession of the same. Moreover, the jamabandi was also running in his name. In spite of the service of notice, the private respondents have not appeared either to controvert the factual statements of the petitioner or to show as to what prejudice would be caused to them in allowing the amendment application in question. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order dated 12.05.2015 passed by the court of Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.24 of 2013 arising out of Land Acquisition Case No. 32 of 2008-09 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.