ORDER 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 23.11.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by the XVIth Additional District Judge, Bhopal Case No.461-A/2008 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the plaint, as also an application filed under Order 7 rule 14 of CPC for bringing certain documents on record has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed a civil suit for specific performance of the contract against the respondent No.1 on the basis of an agreement executed by him. Initially the suit was filed by the society through President R.K.Bajpai, but subsequently due to his illness, he was replaced by his son Vijay Kumar Bajpai. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the suit the respondent No.1 sold the disputed property to the respondent No.4, hence the respondent No.4 was also joined in the array of the defendants and the sale deed executed in his favour has also been challenged by the petitioner. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner also came to know that the respondents No.1 and 4 were convicted by the competent Court and have been sentenced to three years RI on the ground that forged ceiling permission was obtained by them for the alienation of the disputed property, this order of conviction was also sought to be brought on record under Order 7 rule 14 of CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has received the aforesaid document on 17.11.2017 and thereafter has filed amendment application on 22.11.2017. It is submitted that by way of amendment application, the petitioner has sought to make short amendments which are in the nature of minor corrections in the plaint that the plaintiff is willing to perform his part of the contract. It is further submitted that since the respondents did not file any reply to the aforesaid application, hence on the grounds mentioned in the application, the same ought to have been allowed. 3. It is further submitted that since the respondents did not file any reply to the aforesaid application, hence on the grounds mentioned in the application, the same ought to have been allowed. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner does not want to reopen the case and does not want to lead any further evidence in support of his amendment, hence no prejudice would be caused to the respondents even at the present stage of the civil suit. Counsel has also relied upon the decision of the apex Court in the case of Madamanchi Ramappa and another v. Muthaluru Bojjappa, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1633 , to support his contention that the certified copy of a public document is admissible in evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made in this petition and has submitted that the petitioner had filed the civil suit around 29 years ago and application has been filed with an ulterior motive, hence the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that so far as the amendment in respect of title of the plaint is concerned, wherein the plaintiff seeks to bring new President as a plaintiff, he has no objection, but so far as the amendment proposed to be made in the garb of making certain correction in the plaint is concerned, it cannot be accepted. It is further submitted that it is a case of specific performance of contract and in such a suit the willingness of a party has to be pleaded at the initial stage itself and no such prayer can be allowed at the fag end of the trial, specially when the suit is pending since last 29 years. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is not disputed and as also observed by the learned Judge of the trial Court that the suit is pending since last 29 years. So far as the application under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC, which relates to amendment in the cause title is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants if the suit is being represented by some other person as proposed by the plaintiff. So far as the application under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC, which relates to amendment in the cause title is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants if the suit is being represented by some other person as proposed by the plaintiff. However, so far as the prayer of the petitioner that he should be allowed to amend his plaint, which is merely in the form of correction, the same cannot be accepted, as the lines which are proposed to be inserted by the plaintiff are substantive in nature and ought to have been included at the initial stage itself. 6. In the circumstances, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Judge of the trial Court in dismissing the petitioner’s application for amendment. However, as already stated above, the amendment application may be and is hereby allowed so far as it relates to amendment in the cause title. Regarding dismissal of petitioner’s application under Order 7 rule 14 of CPC, which was filed to bring on record the order of conviction, this Court does not find any error in the reasoning arrived by the learned Judge of the trial Court in dismissing the said application on the ground that it is not relevant. Thus, no interference is called for in the order. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed with the aforesaid. No costs.