ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 25.09.2014 in O.S. No. 201/2010 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagar. 2. The petitioner is plaintiff and respondents are defendants in O.S. No. 201/2010 filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the suit schedule property. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement contending that they are in possession of the suit schedule property and plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. 3. They further contended that they are in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of an agreement dated 17.12.1985 executed by one Mohammed Mustaffa. When the suit was at the stage of evidence of defendant No. 2, plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint to include the prayer for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property stating that the defendants are claiming their right through the agreements only and by colluding with the Panchayath officials they have changed the khatha into their names. Application for amendment was opposed by the defendants by filing objections contending that the application is belated and amendment is not permissible at the stage after the commencement of trial. The trial Court by impugned order rejected I.A. No. 22 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC on the ground that the plaintiff has not assigned any reason as regards delay in filing the application and moreover, it is held that the proposed amendment is not necessary for the adjudication of lis between the parties. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the said rejection of the amendment application is before this Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel on both the sides and perused the petition papers. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that Mohammed Musthafa Saheb, father-in-law of plaintiff purchased 4 acres 24 guntas from one Smt. Kakumbiyamma under sale deed dated 25.10.1958 and out of the said land the said Mohammed Musthafa Saheb bequeathed 3 acres of land in Sy. 11/2 in favour of Mohammed Moosa, the husband of the plaintiff as per registered Will dated 13.08.1993. 11/2 in favour of Mohammed Moosa, the husband of the plaintiff as per registered Will dated 13.08.1993. It is submitted that the said Mohammed Musthafa died on 19.08.1983, Mohammed Moosa, the husband of the plaintiff died on 31.01.2009 and during his lifetime he had sold 1 acre 9 guntas out of 3 acres and had retained 1 acre 31 guntas in which the plaintiff is in possession of the said property as absolute and exclusive owner. The defendants claim their right over the suit schedule property under agreements dated 17.12.1985, 01.01.1986 and 04.11.1987 executed by Mohammed Musthafa Saheb. He submits that plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as owner and legal representative of Mohammed Moosa. As defendants claim their ownership over the property, it has become necessary for the plaintiff to file an amendment application to seek prayer for declaration. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the application is filed within three years from the date of filing of written statement. He further submits that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the amendment is necessary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the amendment is allowed, plaintiff would not lead any evidence and the prayer sought is based on the necessary material already available on record. He also further submits that if necessary, plaintiff would make available for cross-examination by the defendants. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the application filed by the plaintiff for amendment to include the prayer for declaration is belated one and the same is not maintainable at the stage of evidence of defendant No. 2. He further submits that the said declaration is not necessary to decide the dispute involved in the suit. 7. The suit initially filed is for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the suit schedule property. It is admitted fact that when the suit was at the stage of evidence of defendant No. 2, plaintiff has filed amendment application to amend the suit prayer to include the relief of declaration to declare that plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. It is admitted fact that when the suit was at the stage of evidence of defendant No. 2, plaintiff has filed amendment application to amend the suit prayer to include the relief of declaration to declare that plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property. The defendants in their written statement claim that they are in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of the agreements executed by Mohammed Musthafa in their favour and also khathas have been changed in their names which made the plaintiff to file an application for amendment to seek the relief of declaration. As the declaration sought is based on the averment of the written statement, wherein, the defendants claim ownership. The amendment needs to be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to minimize the litigation. Further, it is to be noted that learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff would not lead any further evidence and sought amendment based on the material already available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that if necessary, plaintiff would subject himself to cross-examination by the defendants if they desire. 8. The Order VI Rule 17 of CPC permits amendment of pleadings at any stage of proceedings. If the amendment sought is after commencement of trial, the party seeking amendment shall have to satisfy the Court with regard to due diligence on the part of the party seeking amendment. The specific case of the plaintiff is that in written statement, defendants have claimed that they are in possession of the suit schedule property and owners of the same, which made the plaintiff to seek relief of declaration by way of amendment. 9. Hence, the order dated 25.09.2014 on I.A. No. 22 in O.S. No. 201/2010 on the file of Principal civil Judge and JMFC, Ramanagara is set aside and I.A. No. 22 is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- which shall be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants on next date of hearing before the trial Court. Further it made clear that amendment will come into effect from the date of application and question of limitation is left open for trial. 10. With the above observations, writ petition is disposed of.