JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Instant petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against order dated 7.12.2017 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Indora, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Suit No. 220/11 titled Savitri Devi vs. Ramu, whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC i.e. CMA No. 356 of 2017, having been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter, ‘plaintiff’) for amendment of plaint came to be dismissed. 2. Facts, as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff filed a suit in the court of learned Civil Judge, Indora, for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner-in-possession of land comprised in Khata No. 129, Khatauni No. 273, Khasra Nos. 421-429, measuring 00-04-85 Hec, out of total land measuring 0-67-82 Hec situated in revenue estate of Mohal and Mauza Tiora, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh being legal heir of Nikku son of Haria, resident of Village Tiora, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, who was a tenant in the suit land and became owner of the suit land by virtue of provisions of Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Respondent-defendant (hereinafter, ‘defendant’) refuted the claim put forth in the plaint by the plaintiff, by way of written statement. 3. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (Annexure P-3), praying therein for amendment of plaint. Plaintiff averred in the application that he has filed the suit qua Khasra Nos. 421 and 429, measuring 0-67-82 Hec, which the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff Shri Nikku was cultivating as tenant and as such suit land is comprised of Khata No. 129, Khatauni No. 273, Khasra Nos. 421 and 429, land measuring 00-67-82 Hec situated in Village Tiora, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh but inadvertently in the heading of plaint in line No. 3, after the words, “land measuring” it has been wrongly typed/written as “0-04-85 Hec out of total land measuring 0-67-82 Hec”, whereas after the words “land measuring” it should have been “0-67-82 Hec”, as such, it was prayed that the words/figures “0-04-85 Hect out of total land measuring 0-67-82 Hec” may be permitted to be deleted/struck off in line Nos. 3 and 4 of head note and in line No.3 of head note of the plaint, after the words “land measuring” the figures/words, “0-67-82 Hect” may be inserted. 4. 3 and 4 of head note and in line No.3 of head note of the plaint, after the words “land measuring” the figures/words, “0-67-82 Hect” may be inserted. 4. Aforesaid prayer having been made by the plaintiff came to be resisted by the original defendant by way of filing reply to the application, on the ground that the amendment, as prayed for, if allowed, would change the entire complexion of the suit. Defendant also stated in the reply that the amendment as prayed for in the application can not be allowed at this belated stage, especially when no plausible explanation qua the delay has been rendered in the application. 5. Learned Court below, vide order dated 7.12.2017, rejected the application on the ground that no material evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff to show that despite due diligence, plaintiff was unable to move an application for amendment of plaint qua the facts pleaded in the application, before commencement of trial. 6. Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis impugned order, this court is not persuaded to agree with the contention of Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, learned counsel representing the plaintiff that the impugned order passed by learned Court below is not based upon correct appreciation of facts and law applicable, rather, this court finds from the record that amendment, as has been sought by plaintiff, if allowed, would change the entire complexion of the suit, as such, learned Court below rightly rejected the application. Otherwise also, this court finds that there is no plausible explanation rendered in the application that what prevented the plaintiff from seeking declaration of ownership and possession qua the total land measuring 0-67-82 Hectares, in the original plaint, prior to commencement of trial, when he had specific knowledge that he being legal heir of Nikku son of Haria, is entitled to the same. 7. Interestingly, in the case at hand, careful perusal of plaint reveals that there is no mention of suit land in the body of the plaint, rather, details, if any, have been given in the head note of the plaint. Even in the prayer clause, prayer has been made on behalf of the plaintiff to grant a decree of declaration of suit land as described in the head note of the plaint. Even in the prayer clause, prayer has been made on behalf of the plaintiff to grant a decree of declaration of suit land as described in the head note of the plaint. Impugned order reveals, and, which fact has not been otherwise refuted by the learned counsel representing the plaintiff, that prior to filing of application at hand, plaintiff had filed similar applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on two different occasions but the amendment sought by way of application at hand was never incorporated in the earlier applications despite knowledge of the same. 8. Leaving everything aside, there is no specific averment in the application that despite due diligence, plaintiff was unable to make an application for amendment of plaint before commencement of trial. In the case at hand, plea of due diligence has been taken in a very casual manner without there being any specific reason attached to it. Otherwise also, this court sees substantial force in the arguments of Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel representing the defendant that in case plaintiff is allowed to amend the plaint, as has been prayed for, the entire complexion of the suit would change because, admittedly, in the original plaint, plaintiff has sought declaration to the effect that he be declared owner-in-possession of the land comprised in Khata No. 129, Khatauni No. 273, Khasra Nos. 421 and 429, measuring 0-04-85 Hectares, out of total land measuring 0-67-82 Hectares, whereas, as per proposed amendment, plaintiff wants to delete words “land measuring 0-04-85 Hms out of total land” meaning thereby in case amendment is allowed, plaintiff would be claiming declaration qua the land measuring 0-67-82 Hms, which was never the case put forth by the plaintiff in the original plaint. Otherwise also, it is well settled proposition of law that amendment, which proposes to change the very nature of suit, can not be allowed. 9. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Union of India and another reported in (2011) 12 SCC 268 have held that where an application is filed after the commencement of the trial, it must be shown that despite due diligence, said amendment could not have been sought earlier. Their lordships have held as under: 7. The above provision deals with amendment of pleadings. By Amendment Act 46 of 1999, this provision was deleted. Their lordships have held as under: 7. The above provision deals with amendment of pleadings. By Amendment Act 46 of 1999, this provision was deleted. It has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being 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. The proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Now, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it must be shown that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The purpose and object of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, but the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper-technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly, in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. Normally, amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations.” 10. 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. 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.” 11. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that while allowing/rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint, it is to be seen whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case. 12. In the case at hand, since allowing of the prayer made by the plaintiff would lead to change of entire complexion of suit, therefore, the learned Court below has rightly rejected the application of the plaintiff. 13. Consequently, in view of the discussion made herein above as also in light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject, it is clear that the plaintiff failed to make out a case for allowing his application seeking amendment of the plaint and as such learned Court below has rightly rejected the same. 14. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Impugned order passed by the learned Court below is upheld. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of. Interim direction, if any, is vacated.