JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. – Aggrieved of order dated 08.07.2011 passed in Title (Declaratory) Suit No.133 of 2008, the defendants have approached this Court. 2. By an order dated 16.11.2017 operation of the impugned order dated 08.07.2011 was stayed by this Court. 3. Briefly stated Title (Declaratory) Suit No.133 of 2008 was instituted by Subal Ray claiming himself adopted son of late Littu Rai for a declaration that the defendant no.1 is not the adopted son of Purni Ghatwalin and that the mutation vide M.C. No. 172/2000-01 and in M.C. No.183/2000-01 by the Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar has been obtained on the basis of fake and forge adoption deed. The plaintiff has asserted that on death of Kalwatia Ghatwalin her daughter namely Purni Ghatwalin inherited her mother''s properties and also succeeded to the properties belonging to her husband namely, Littu Rai. She died on 27.12.1999. At that time the property of J.B. No.80 of Mouza Raikund was recorded in the name of Mahatap Rai in Gantzor''s purcha. The said Purni Ghatwalin was issueless. It is pleaded that she requested Chhatradhari Rai and his wife namely, Sanjhiya Ghatwalin for adopting their youngest son namely, Charku Ray and on 26.01.1989 Purni Ghatwalin adopted the said Charku Ray by taking him in lap and on performance of giving and taking ceremony. In paragraph no.12 of the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded that Purni Devi, Chhatradhari Rai, Sanjhiya Devi and others visited the office of the Registrar, Deoghar and Adoption Deed No.15, dated 27.01.1989 was executed. 4. During the trial after eight witnesses were examined by the plaintiff, an application dated 02.07.2011 for amendment in the plaint was filed. This application has been allowed by the trial judge by an order dated 08.07.2011. Aggrieved, the defendants have approached this Court. 5. Sri Aashish Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner who is defendant no.1 in Title (Declaratory) Suit No.133 of 2008 contends that ignoring the mandate under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C the trial Judge has erroneously permitted amendment in the plaint when the plaintiff had already examined eight witnesses. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that an amendment in the pleadings cannot be permitted to resile from the stand taken by the parties in a pending suit. 6. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that an amendment in the pleadings cannot be permitted to resile from the stand taken by the parties in a pending suit. 6. Opposing the challenge to the impugned order dated 08.07.2011, Sri Niranjan Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that at the time of adoption of Charku Ray Chhatradhari Rai was in judicial custody, however, inadvertently this fact was not recorded in the plaint and when this mistake was detected during the trial, an amendment application was filed by the plaintiff for correcting the aforesaid error. Plea raised on behalf of the plaintiff is that the adoption deed has been signed by the Chhatradhari Rai after his release from judicial custody and while so, if the errors crept in the plaint are not permitted to be corrected, it would bring about a contradiction in the pleadings and the documents. 7. No doubt amendment in the pleadings can be allowed at any stage, even at the stage of final hearing, however, this power conferred upon the court is limited by a statutory provision contained in proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. It mandates that amendment in the pleadings shall not be permitted after the trial in the suit has commenced. In its order dated 08.07.2011 the trial judge has noticed that the application dated 02.07.2011 for amendment in the plaint was filed after the plaintiff had examined eight witnesses. It is well-settled that power to permit amendment in the pleadings is an equitable relief which cannot be exercised for correcting an alleged error which would amount to making a false statement by a party. 8. In the plaint, the plaintiff has taken a stand that at the time of registration of adoption deed on 27.01.1989 Chhatradhari Rai had accompanied his wife Sanjhiya Devi. It is also pleaded by the plaintiff that the natural parents of Charku Ray put their signature on the adoption deed. Subsequently, when it was challenged by the defendants that the said Chhatradhari Rai could not have accompanied his wife to the office of Registrar, Deoghar, for he was in judicial custody, an amendment application was filed. Through out the plaint, at several places, the plaintiff has asserted that at the time of giving and taking ceremony, registration of adoption deed and other occasions Chhatradhari Rai was also present. Through out the plaint, at several places, the plaintiff has asserted that at the time of giving and taking ceremony, registration of adoption deed and other occasions Chhatradhari Rai was also present. In my opinion, amendment in the plaint in the aforesaid facts, would amount to permitting the plaintiff to resile from his initial stand in the plaint. Apparently, the trial judge has exercised a jurisdiction which is not vested in it. Finding serious infirmities in the impugned order dated 08.07.2011, it is hereby set-aside. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Evidence of the witnesses, if any taken, on the amendment as contained in application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C dated 02.07.2011 shall be struck off from the record.