ORDER : 1. The petitioner who is plaintiff no.1 in Title Suit No.157 of 1997, aggrieved of order dated 02.03.2017 by which amendment in the plaint has been declined, has come to this Court. 2. Title Suit No.157 of 1997 was instituted by the petitioner and three others for a decree for declaration of their title and confirmation of possession over schedule ‘A’ lands. The plaintiffs have pleaded that the lands comprised under R.S. Plot No.257 area about 4.85 acres were recorded in the name of late Kana Budhwa Oraon who died after publication of the Revisional Survey Record of Rights leaving behind his son-Fagu Oraon. The said Fagu Oraon is father of the plaintiff no.1-Khudia Oraon and Bhathuwa Oraon who is father of plaintiff nos.2 to 4. The plaintiff no.1 and the said Bhathuwa Oraon jointly inherited the lands comprised under R.S. Khata No.53 in village-Jorar after the death of their father and both were in joint possession of schedule ‘A’ lands. The plaintiff no.1 and his brother-Bhatuhua Oraon took permission to sell the land for which Misc. Case No.337 R 8II of 75-76 was initiated and vide order dated 17.04.1977 permission for sale of 0.51 acres of land out of R.S. Plot No.257 was granted. By virtue of the said order the plaintiff no.1 and late Bhathuwa Oraon executed a sale-deed in favour of Roseline Dahanga and others who, however, did not pay the consideration money and, therefore, possession of 0.51 acres of land in R.S. Plot No.257 was not given to them. The plaintiffs have pleaded that in the month of July, 1997 the defendant no.1 namely, Birtunus Subarno tried to take forceable possession of schedule ‘A’ lands which was resisted by them. The defendant no.1 is claiming the schedule ‘A’ lands by virtue of a forged sale-deed allegedly executed by late Bhathuwa Oraon in the year 1979, who, however, had already died some time in the year 1978. 3. The original defendant no.1 has filed a written statement claiming right, title and interest over the schedule ‘A’ lands by virtue of sale-deed dated 04.09.1979 executed by the said Bhathuwa Oraon. 4. During the trial, after the parties led their evidence and the suit was posted for final hearing, an application for amendment in the plaint was filed on 14.03.2016 seeking addition of a relief to challenge the sale-deed executed in favour of Birtunus Subarno. 4. During the trial, after the parties led their evidence and the suit was posted for final hearing, an application for amendment in the plaint was filed on 14.03.2016 seeking addition of a relief to challenge the sale-deed executed in favour of Birtunus Subarno. This application has been dismissed on the ground that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decisions in “Pankaja and Another Vs. Yellappa (Dead) by LRS. and Others” reported in (2004) 6 SCC 415 and “Chakreshwari Construction Private Limited Vs. Manohar Lal” reported in (2017) 5 SCC 212 . Supporting the impugned order dated 02.03.2017 Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, the learned counsel for the respondents relies on the decisions in “J. Samuel and Others Vs. Gattu Mahesh and Others” reported in (2012) 2 SCC 300 and “Chander Kanta Bansal Vs. Rajinder Singh Anand” reported in (2008) 5 SCC 117 . 6. Contention raised on behalf of the respondents is that a party to the suit cannot be permitted to take benefits of his own mistake. 7. Order VI Rule 17 CPC which permits amendment in the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings is found on the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. Order VI Rule 17 CPC provides that the court may permit either party to amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, however, Rule 17 CPC itself puts a limitation on powers of the court to permit amendment in the pleadings. It provides that if amendment in the pleadings is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, all amendments in the pleadings can be permitted on such terms as the court may deem just and proper. After Order VI Rule 17 CPC was amended by the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 2002 and a proviso was inserted therein, further limitation has been put on powers of the court to permit amendment in the pleadings. It provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced and by now it is well-settled that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is mandatory. However, proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC itself carves out an exception. It provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced and by now it is well-settled that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is mandatory. However, proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC itself carves out an exception. It provides that if inspite of due diligence the matter could not have been raised by the parties before the commencement of trial, amendment in the pleadings can be permitted. In “Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. Vs. Union of India” reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344 , scope of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been discussed by the Supreme Court in the following words: 26. ........”The proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Now, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial. There is no illegality in the provision” 8. No doubt, by Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 2002 a statutory limitation on the powers of the court has been incorporated in Order VI Rule 17 CPC, but the fundamental test when an amendment in the pleadings can be permitted cannot be lost sight of. The expression “real question in controversy between the parties” in Rule 17 CPC must be examined in the context of initial pleadings of the parties. It is not that in all cases where other party can be suitably compensated or before trial in the suit has commenced parties can be permitted to amend their pleadings, it is only such amendment which shall have a co-relation to the initial pleadings of the parties and which is necessary for adjudicating the real question in controversy that can be permitted; of course subsequent developments, if necessary, also can be incorporated through amendment in the pleadings. 9. The plaint averments unerringly disclose that the plaintiffs have taken a position that the defendant no.1 is claiming right, title and interest over the schedule ‘A’ lands by virtue of the sale-deed of 1979 allegedly executed by the Bhathuwa Oraon who had already died some time in the year 1978 itself. Relief sought in the suit by the plaintiffs is, for a declaration of their right over the schedule ‘A’ lands. Relief sought in the suit by the plaintiffs is, for a declaration of their right over the schedule ‘A’ lands. And, the defendant no.1 is claiming title over schedule ‘A’ lands by virtue of sale-deed dated 04.09.1979. The sale-deed dated 04.09.1979 is the centre for controversy. In the aforesaid state of pleadings, may be there was delay on part of the plaintiffs to seek amendment in the plaint, in view of the fact that they have directly thrown a challenge to the sale-deed executed in favour of defendant no.1, permission to challenge the said sale-deed dated 04.09.1979 through amendment would not cause prejudice to the defendant. The defendants have notice of the stand taken by the plaintiffs to which they have appropriately replied by filing written-statement whereunder the defendant no.1 has asserted his claim over schedule ‘A’ lands by virtue of sale-deed dated 04.09.1979. A permission to challenge the sale-deed dated 04.09.1979 if granted and incorporated in the relief portion, would not change the nature of the suit. The proposed amendment is really formal in nature. It is intended at avoiding the technical difficulty which may arise, in the event the plaintiffs finally succeed. In the aforesaid background, the proposed amendment is necessary for adjudicating the controversy on the schedule ‘A’ lands. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, finding serious infirmity with the impugned order dated 02.03.2017, it is quashed. Amendment dated 14.03.2016 shall be incorporated in the plaint. The defendants, substituted in place of defendant no.1, shall be permitted to file additional written statement, however, only to the extent this amendment has been allowed. 11. The writ petition stands allowed.