ORDER : The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC proposing amendment to his plaint is rejected. 2. Sri. N. Krishnacharya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit for damages against the defendants. On appearance of the defendants and on completion of the pleadings, issues were framed. At that stage, the petitioner noticed that in the cause title of his plaint, the name of the defendant was wrongly mentioned and the date of the transaction was also incorrectly spelt in the plaint and it was a sheer act of oversight and not intentional. Hence, he proposed to carry out the above clerical mistake in the plaint. But the concerned Court dismissed his application overlooking the fact that the proposed amendment was necessary for proper adjudication of the case since the mistake that occurred in the plaint was a typographical error, rectifying the same is not affecting the right of the defendants. the court below ought to have allowed the application. 3. In the light of the above, order under challenge is perused. As such, while the cross examination of PW1 was in progress, the application for amendment was filed. The Trial Court observed that during cross examination, there was a suggestion in respect of the fact proposed to be amended. That prompted the learned Court to reject the application. As such, there is no statutory prohibition for amendment to the pleading after commencement of the trial. The proviso to Rule 17 CPC contemplates that the amendment shall not be allowed after commencement of the trial unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of the diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Following lines from the judgment of the Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Vs. Mohd. Ruldu (JT 2012(10) SC 97) are relevant here: “8. The original provision was deleted by Amendment Act 46 of 1999, however, it has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The above proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. At present, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that inspite of due diligence, it could not have been sought earlier. The object of the rule is that Courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This court, in a series of decisions has held that the power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceeding in the interest of justice. The main purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation and the plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. The above principles have been reiterated by this Court in J. Samuel and others Vs. Gattu Mahesh and others (2012)2 SCC 300 and Rameshkumar Agarwal Vs. Rajmala Exports Private Limited and others (2012)5 SCC 337 . Keeping the above principles in mind, let us consider whether the appellants have made out a case for amendment.” 4. Thus there is obligation on the part of the applicant to show that despite due diligence, he could not have sought for amendment earlier and on the other side, the court has to consider whether the proposed amendment is necessary for determining the real question in controversy. The plaintiff in the affidavit filed in support of the application did not explain the delay in filing the application and the application is rejected solely on the ground that it is filed after commencement of the trial Without considering the fact that whether the proposed amendment was necessary for proper adjudication of the lis. 5. To do complete justice, the mater requires reconsideration in the event the plaintiff convinces the court below about the delay in filing the application and the bonafides on his part in seeking amendment. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order at Annexure-E is set aside. The Trial Court shall consider the application afresh. 5. To do complete justice, the mater requires reconsideration in the event the plaintiff convinces the court below about the delay in filing the application and the bonafides on his part in seeking amendment. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order at Annexure-E is set aside. The Trial Court shall consider the application afresh. In the event, the petitioner files additional affidavit explaining the delay in filing the application, same shall be considered in accordance with law.