JUDGMENT : The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 05.12.2009 by which the application for amendment has been declined. 2. Title Suit No.298 of 2001 was instituted by Krishna Prasad and Smt. Urmila Devi for a decree for specific performance of agreement dated 25.04.1992. The suit was resisted by the defendant- Krishna Lal Saw raising various grounds on waiver, acquiescence, estoppel, cause of action and limitation. The defendant has pleaded that no cause of action for instituting the suit arose on 25.04.1992 or on “subsequent dates”. Resisting the relief sought by the plaintiffs, the defendant has asserted that he entered into an agreement for sale with Smt. Sheo Kumari Devi for a portion of the suit land before agreement dated 25.04.1992 was executed and subsequently a portion of the schedule land was transferred to Sheo Kumari Devi prior to institution of Title Suit No.298 of 2001. 3. After the parties led their evidence and closed the arguments, an application for amendment in paragraph no.22 of the plaint was filed. 4. Paragraph No.12 of the plaint reads as under: 12. “That the cause of action for the suit arose on 25.04.1992 at Hirapur Telipara, P.S. Dhanbad, Dist. Dhanbad within the jurisdiction of this court.” 5. By the application for amendment the plaintiffs intend to incorporate the following in paragraph no.12; “the word 24.09.2001 and 22.10.2001 and all the other subsequent date or dates”, after the word 25.04.1992. 6. Contending that the proposed amendment is mere formal and intended to avoid technical objection by the defendant, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once it is found that sufficient foundation has been laid in the plaint for incorporating the aforesaid amendments in paragraph no.12, amendment in the plaint should have been allowed. 7. As against the above, Mr. S.N. Das, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that an amendment which is barred by limitation cannot be permitted. Moreover, once a plea on maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation was taken by the defendant, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to fill-up lacuna in their case. 8. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC reads as under: 17. S.N. Das, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that an amendment which is barred by limitation cannot be permitted. Moreover, once a plea on maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation was taken by the defendant, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to fill-up lacuna in their case. 8. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC 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.” 9. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC confers wide powers upon the court to permit amendment in the pleadings. By now it is well-settled that amendment in the pleadings can be allowed at any stage of the suit, even at the stage of final hearing in the suit. Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, however, puts restrictions on the powers of the court to permit amendment in the pleadings. It provides that amendment in the pleadings shall not be permitted after trial in the suit has commenced, however, exceptions have been carved out through judicial pronouncements to proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 10. The plaintiffs have asserted that Rs.4,000/- was paid to the defendant on 24.09.2001 as part-payment to the consideration amount and on 22.10.2001 a legal notice was issued to the defendant. These facts are not denied by the defendant in the written statement. In paragraph no.16 of the written statement, the defendant has pleaded that payment of Rs.4,000/- by the plaintiffs on 24.09.2001 is irrelevant as the agreement was of the year 1992 and therefore no permission could have been granted in the year 2001. In paragraph no.18 the defendant has admitted that a legal notice dated 22.10.2001 was issued by the plaintiffs which was replied by him. 11. In paragraph no.18 the defendant has admitted that a legal notice dated 22.10.2001 was issued by the plaintiffs which was replied by him. 11. Once it is found that payment of Rs.4,000/- on 24.09.2001 and issuance of legal notice on 22.10.2001 are admitted by the defendant, amendment in paragraph no.12, in my opinion, becomes formal in nature. Through amendments, the plaintiffs are not introducing something new in the plaint which would take the defendant by surprise. Cause of action can be gathered from the plaint averments and not only from the “cause of action” paragraph. 12. In the above facts, finding serious infirmity in the impugned order dated 05.12.2009, it is set-aside. The proposed amendment in application dated 04.05.2007 stands incorporated in paragraph no.12 of the plaint. The defendant may file additional written statement and lead evidence in rebuttal. 13. The writ petition stands allowed, in the above terms.