JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Aggrieved of order dated 06.12.2016 passed in Title Suit No. 48 of 2012 whereby an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been rejected, the petitioners have approached this Court. 2. The petitioners are defendants in Title Suit No. 48 of 2012. The suit was instituted by Damodar Valley Corporation for a decree of declaration of its exclusive and unencumbered right, title and interest over entire area of land comprised in Plot No. 1291, Khata No. 41 under Mouza No. 239 at village Kesharkural, P.S. Chirkunda (District Dhanbad) and a declaration that sale deeds dated 20.09.2010 as described in Schedule 'B' of the plaint in respect of 13.77 decimal of land comprised in Plot No. 1291 (Khata No. 41) is inoperative, non-est and void ab initio. A prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants etc. from interfering with right, title, interest and exclusive possession of plaintiff No. 1 D.V.C. was also made. The suit was instituted on 07.06.2012 and the defendants presented their written statement on 11.01.2013. Issues were settled in the suit on 31.08.2015. Thereafter, application for amendment in the written statement was filed on 07.10.2015. 3. Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is mandatory, is now well-settled. Normally, parties cannot be permitted to amend their pleadings after trial in the suit has commenced. There is no dispute in this case that after the issues were settled in Title Suit No. 48 of 2012, application for amendment was filed by the defendants. Contending that the proposed amendments would not change the nature of the suit, Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on an erroneous presumption that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit, the application for amendment has been dismissed by the trial judge. It is contended that the proposed amendments are only by way of elaboration, for they are explanatory in nature. The learned counsel for the petitioners to fortify his contentions has referred to judgment in "Baldev Singh and Ors. v. Manohar Singh and Anr." 2006 (4) JCR 186 (SC) : (2006) 6 SCC 498 and in "Usha Balasaheb Swami and Ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami and Ors." (2007) 5 SCC 602 . 4. An interesting aspect in this case is that the original written statement runs to 23 paragraphs and the proposed amendments also contain 35 paragraphs. v. Manohar Singh and Anr." 2006 (4) JCR 186 (SC) : (2006) 6 SCC 498 and in "Usha Balasaheb Swami and Ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami and Ors." (2007) 5 SCC 602 . 4. An interesting aspect in this case is that the original written statement runs to 23 paragraphs and the proposed amendments also contain 35 paragraphs. The plea taken by the petitioners that the proposed amendments are only by way of explanation, on the face of it appears to be frivolous. By the proposed amendments the entire written statement is sought to be replaced. 5. It is well-settled that if the proposed amendment would cause prejudice to the other party who cannot be compensated in any manner, amendment in the pleadings cannot be allowed. The proposed amendments are so extensive that even if these are by way of elaboration, these cannot be permitted for two reasons viz. conditions provided under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC are not satisfied, and it would render the statutory conditions engrafted thereunder meaningless. Merely because the trial Judge has observed that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit, in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, an order which otherwise can be sustained in law cannot be interfered with. 6. Finding no merit in the writ petition, it is dismissed. I.A. No. 7787 of 2017 is also disposed of. Petition dismissed.