JUDGMENT : S.C. GUPTE, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of counsel. 3. The challenge in the present petition is to an order passed by the 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur on an application for amendment of plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The petitioners herein are original plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No. 1324/2017. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement for sale of immovable property. The property, in accordance with the agreement between the parties which is annexed to the plaint, is described as land at Gumgaon, P.H. No. 48, Grampanchayat Gumgaon, Tahsil Hingna, District Nagpur, Survey Nos. 3/1 and 3/3, admeasuring 1 Hectare 67 R. The amendment application itself is on the footing that the area of property mentioned in the agreement for sale, namely, 1 Hectare 67 R was wrongly reflected as 2.15 Acres in the plaint. The mistake is stated to have occurred due to wrong conversion of hectares into acres. A proper conversion would require the land to be described as admeasuring around 3 Acres. The agreement itself did not name the total price of the land in absolute terms. The consideration was mentioned in the form of a rate, i.e. Rs. 2,41,786/- per acre. Since the area of the land itself was wrongly computed at 2.15 Acres, the total consideration was also mentioned wrongly as Rs. 5,18,156/-. This mistake also reflected on the averments made in the plaint concerning performance of the agreement on the part of the plaintiffs. Since the agreement required payment of Rs. 1,35,000/- towards earnest and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed, and the plaintiffs having further paid a sum of Rs. 3,85,000/- towards sale of the suit property at the request of the defendants, the averment in the plaint was to the effect that the entire consideration fixed under the agreement (which as noted above, came to Rs. 5,18,156/- on the basis of the area wrongly stated as 2.15 Acres) was paid and that against such payment the defendants were bound and liable to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. 5,18,156/- on the basis of the area wrongly stated as 2.15 Acres) was paid and that against such payment the defendants were bound and liable to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The original mistake of wrong conversion of hectares into acres for describing the area of the land, accordingly, resulted in the wrong calculation of the total payable amount towards sale of the suit property and also led to the wrong averment that the entire consideration was duly paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants. In these circumstances, when the mistake was noticed by them, an application was made by the plaintiffs, to amend the plaint inter-alia by correcting the area of the suit property described in the plaint and also making an averment that the plaintiffs were ready and willing to pay the balance consideration towards purchase of the suit property. Whilst the trial Court allowed the amendment partly, that is to say, by allowing the plaintiffs to correct the area of the suit property, it refused to allow the plaintiffs to incorporate averments concerning their readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration towards purchase of the suit property. This part rejection of the amendment application is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 5. At the outset, it has to be noted that the impugned order of the trial Court is passed on the footing that the trial of the suit has not commenced. Though affidavit of evidence in lieu of examination in chief was earlier filed by the plaintiffs, the same was withdrawn by them and thus, there was no affidavit of evidence on record. For considering the propriety and correctness of the order, the amendment, accordingly, has to be considered as a per-commencement of trial amendment. 6. The amendment itself was said to have been necessitated, as we have noted above, due to the original error in converting the area of the property from hectares into acres. Not only the correction of the area but all other aspects of amendment sought in the present application spring from that central mistake. 6. The amendment itself was said to have been necessitated, as we have noted above, due to the original error in converting the area of the property from hectares into acres. Not only the correction of the area but all other aspects of amendment sought in the present application spring from that central mistake. Because of area in conversion not only is the area of the suit property reflected incorrectly in the body of the plaint but even the total consideration for the sale of the suit property has been wrongly computed (since that was not stated in absolute terms, but in the form of a rate). As a necessary concomitant, it is the plaintiffs’ case, the performance of the suit agreement on the part of the plaintiffs has been wrongly averred. The wrongly computed compensation having been paid by the plaintiffs, the averment was to the effect that the entire consideration was paid. Upon realizing the mistake and correcting the area and consequently the computation of the total consideration, it is apparent that what is paid is not full consideration but a part thereof, leaving the balance payable. As for this balance consideration, the plaintiffs want to aver readiness and willingness to pay. 7. The foregoing discussion clearly indicates that if at all the Court were to accept the plaintiff’s case of mistake in conversion of area and accordingly, allow correction of the area of the suit property, the Court could not reject the other amendments concerning (i) the total consideration payable, (ii) part consideration paid and (iii) balance consideration payable, for which the plaintiffs express their readiness and willingness. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi vs. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar, (1990) 1 SCC 166 permitted an amendment to the plaint which introduced the averment of readiness and willingness required under section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The Court held that the averment was originally not made, probably on account of some oversight or mistake, and that mistake was sought to be rectified by the amendment applied for. The Court held that there was no fresh cause of action sought to be introduced and hence, no question of causing any injustice to the opponent on that account arose. The ratio of that judgment clearly applies to the plaintiffs’ case here. 9. The Court held that there was no fresh cause of action sought to be introduced and hence, no question of causing any injustice to the opponent on that account arose. The ratio of that judgment clearly applies to the plaintiffs’ case here. 9. The amendment by no means implies that the Court accepts the case pleaded by the plaintiffs either of their original mistake or the resultant mistakes which followed or their readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration. The only implication is that the plaintiffs would have an opportunity to prove such case at the trial, whilst the defendants would equally have an opportunity to defend such case. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents, relying on the judgment of our Court in the case of Jayashree Subhash Kalbande and Another vs. Bhaurao Nagorao Derkar and Others, 2014 (4) Mh.L.J. 168 , submits that unless a case of due diligence is made out under the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17, it is not permissible to allow the application for amendment after the commencement of trial. First of all, this issue does not arise in the present case, since the amendment is allowed expressly on the footing that the trial has not commenced and there is no objection raised to the order allowing part amendment on that basis. Secondly, and at any rate, if the plaintiffs’ case that the area of the suit property was wrongly described due to an error in conversion from hectares into acres comes within the rule of due diligence, so do the resulting errors in computing the total consideration and making averments concerning readiness and willingness. 11. The other judgment of our Court cited by learned counsel for the respondents, namely, the case of Vera Lelisa Viegas Pereira vs. Agnelo Caetano Colaco and Others, 2014 (1) Mh.L.J. 170 , also has no application to the facts of the present case. That case was decided under the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 and in the context of the fact that there was no averment of due diligence on the part of the applicant. 12. As held by our Court in the case of N.C. Banerjee and Company vs. Manoj Balkrishna Shah and Others, 2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 55 , merely because the amendment application is allowed, the case of the applicant pleaded in the amendment is not to be treated as accepted by the Court. 12. As held by our Court in the case of N.C. Banerjee and Company vs. Manoj Balkrishna Shah and Others, 2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 55 , merely because the amendment application is allowed, the case of the applicant pleaded in the amendment is not to be treated as accepted by the Court. The plaintiffs’ case that the statement of area of the suit property was a bona fide error on their part and the resultant want of averment of readiness and willingness was the direct result of that bona fide error, will have to be made out at the trial of the suit, since it is an important aspect of the plaintiffs’ purported readiness and willingness which anyway is a vital issue at the trial of the suit. 13. In the premises, the impugned order of the trial Court cannot be sustained. The trial Court has committed a grave illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction under Order VI, Rule 17 and the same needs to be corrected in the interest of justice. 14. Accordingly, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause-I of the petition. The impugned order of the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur, is quashed and set aside to the extent it partly rejects the plaintiffs’ application for amendment (Exh.54). The plaintiffs’ application (Exh.54) is allowed. No order as to costs. 15. The respondents (original defendants) shall be entitled to amend their written statement so as to deal with the amended plaint. 16. At the joint request of counsel, the hearing of the Special Civil Suit is directed to be expedited. The Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferable within a period of one year from today. Petition allowed.