JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 9.10.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Court No.3, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) having been filed by the petitioners-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the ‘defendants’), praying therein for amendment of written statement as well as counter claim, came to be dismissed, the defendants have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying therein to allow the aforesaid application after setting aside impugned order dated 9.10.2017, passed by the Court below. 2. Necessary facts, as emerge from the record, are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiffs’) filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and in the alternative for possession of the suit land. Defendants by way of written statement refuted the claim put forth by the plaintiffs and also raised certain claims in counter claim (Annexure P-1 Colly.). 3. During the pendency of the suit, referred hereinabove, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment of the written statement as well as counter claim, came to be filed on behalf of the defendants (Annexure P-2). However, fact remains that vide order dated 9.10.2017 (Annexure P-3) learned Court below rejected the same. In the aforesaid background, the defendants approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 4. Defendants averred in the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC that matter with regard to demarcation of the suit land remained pending before the revenue authorities as well as appellate authorities and only after order passed by learned Collector, Sub Division, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, it transpired that defendants No.1 to 3 were in possession of the land measuring 6.1 bighas. Since the revenue staff without preparing tatima told the defendants that they were in possession of 3.2 bighas of the suit land, factum with regard to their being in possession of 6.1 bighas of suit land could not be stated in the written statement. Since the revenue staff without preparing tatima told the defendants that they were in possession of 3.2 bighas of the suit land, factum with regard to their being in possession of 6.1 bighas of suit land could not be stated in the written statement. However, after demarcation and preparation of tatima, as referred hereinabove, defendants found it necessary to amend their written statement to incorporate in the written statement as well as in counter claim that they were in possession of 6.1 bighas of suit land instead of 3.2 bighas of suit land, as originally stated in the written statement as well as counter claim. 5. Interestingly, reply to the application filed by the plaintiffs, clearly suggests that plaintiffs have admitted the factum with regard to demarcation carried out by the Local Commissioner on 1.5.2012, wherein he has reported that the defendants are in possession of land measuring 6.1 bighas. Though, in para-3 of reply to the application, the plaintiffs have stated that the Local Commissioner has wrongly mentioned that the defendants are in possession of land, but fact remains that the averments with regard to demarcation carried out by the Local Commissioner on 1.5.2012 and his report, as averred in application, stand admitted in so many words by the plaintiffs and as such there appears to be considerable force in the arguments of Shri Hamender Singh Chandel, learned counsel representing the petitioners-defendants, that in any case dispute interse parties remains with regard to 6.1 bighas of land and proposed amendment would not change the nature of the plea of defence taken by the defendants-respondents in written statement. Moreover, in the counter claim also the area of the land in question was required to be mentioned correctly as per the tatima prepared by the revenue agency which showed land as measuring 6.1 bighas. Otherwise also, this Court finds from the perusal of impugned order that learned Judge below, while rejecting the prayer for amendment having been made by the defendants, has gone totally stray and has not touched the aforesaid aspect of the matter because there is no finding to this effect that, “whether proposed amendment in any way would change the complexion of case or not?”. Rather, as has been taken note hereinabove, dispute interse parties remains with regard to 6.1 bighas of land and proposed amendment would not change the nature of the plea of defence taken by the respondents-defendants. 6. True, it is, that as per own pleadings set up by the defendants, demarcation was conducted on 1.5.2012 and tatima was also prepared and the actual extent of the possession of the petitioners-defendants to the extent of 6.1 bighas was noted, whereas application came to be filed on 2.1.2014, which fact has also been wrongly recorded by the Court below in the impugned order. Learned Court below has recorded in the impugned order that application has been filed on 5.8.2015, whereas date mentioned on the application suggests that the same was filed on 2.1.2014, which fact is otherwise not disputed by the learned counsel representing the plaintiffs. 7. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as by this Court that the Court should adopt liberal approach instead of hyper-technical approach, in allowing the amendment. Amendment, seeking to introduce facts/evidence in support of contention already pleaded, is permissible. 8. In the case at hand, if written statement having been filed by the defendants, is perused who subsequently moved an application for amendment of written statement as well as counter claim, it clearly suggests that factum qua pendency of matter with regard to demarcation of the suit land before the revenue authorities as well as appellate authorities stands duly mentioned in the written statement and it was only after the orders passed by the learned Collector, Sub Division, Ghumawin, Dsitrict Bilaspur, demarcation of the suit land was conducted, wherein factum with regard to defendants’ possession over the land measuring 6.1 bighas came to the fore and as such it cannot be said that amendment sought to be made by the defendants in written statement as well as in counter claim was afterthought, rather, it was necessitated on account of subsequent development which has direct bearings on the case. 9. 9. It is well settled that the Court may at any stage of 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 inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 10. In the case at hand, as has been taken note hereinabove, dispute interse parties otherwise is with regard to 6.1 bighas of land as has otherwise been admitted by the plaintiffs in their reply to the application for amendment, but, since report of Local Commissioner came subsequent to the filing of the written statement, it can be said or presumed that inspite of due diligence, party concerned was unable to raise matter before the commencement of trial. Otherwise also, this Court finds from the impugned order itself that the plaintiffs’ evidence is yet to commence and as such no prejudice, whatsoever, would be caused to the plaintiffs in case the application for amendment, as prayed for, is allowed. Reliance is placed upon Rameshkumar Agarwal vs. Rajmala Exports Private Limited and others, (2012) 5 SCC 337 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “14. Order 6 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) makes it clear that every pleading shall contain only a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 makes it clear that every pleading shall be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively, each allegation being, so far as is convenient, contained in a separate paragraph. Sub- rule (3) of Rule 2 mandates that dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in a pleading in figures as well as in words. 15. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code enables the parties to make amendment of the plaint which reads as under; “17. Sub- rule (3) of Rule 2 mandates that dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in a pleading in figures as well as in words. 15. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code enables the parties to make amendment of the plaint which 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.” 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Chakreshwari Construction Private Limited vs. Manohar Lal, (2017) 5 SCC 212 , has culled out certain principles while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment, which are as under:- “13. The principle applicable for deciding the application made for amendment in the pleadings remains no more res integra and is laid down in several cases. In Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy & Sons, (2009)10 SCC 84 , this Court, after examining the entire previous case law on the subject, culled out the following principle in para 63 of the judgment which reads as under: (SCC p.102) “63. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money. (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation. (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation. (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive.” 12. If the facts of the present case are considered in the light of aforesaid parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case and application for amendment is bonafide and no prejudice would be caused to the opposite party, rather amendment would help in proper adjudication of the case. (See: Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others, (2009)10 SCC 84 and Khushbir Singh vs. Gurdeep Singh and Others, (2016)14 SCC 638). 13. Consequently, in view of the discussion made hereinabove as well as law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that impugned order dated 9.10.2017 passed by Court below is not sustainable in the eye of law and as such same is quashed and set aside. The application filed by the petitioners-defendants before the Court below is allowed. Learned Court below is directed to take the amended written statement as well as counter claim on record. Needless to say that the respondents-plaintiffs shall be afforded opportunity to file replication to the amended written statement as well as reply to the counter claim. 14. Learned counsel representing the parties undertake to appear before the Court below on 12.12.2018. Record, if any, of Court below be sent back forthwith to enable it to do the needful within stipulated time. 15. Interim order, if any, is vacated. All the miscellaneous applications are disposed of.