ORDER : 1. Supplementary-affidavit dated 10.10.2018 is taken on record. 2. The petitioner, who is plaintiff in Title Suit No.24 of 2010 is aggrieved of order dated 02.08.2014 by which amendment in the plaint has been declined by the trial Judge. 3. Title Suit No.24 of 2010 has been instituted by the petitioner for a decree for declaration of her title and confirmation of her possession over schedule-1 property. The plaintiff has laid a claim over the land comprised under Khata No.372, Plot No.5607, area about 0.07¾ acres on the basis of a transfer to her vendors by the legal heirs of the recorded tenants namely, Sheikh Badho, Sheikh Bedo, Seikh Turab, Seikh Dahu, Seikh Baibal and Seikh Chuto. The defendants have contested the suit by filing a written-statement raising various objections to the maintainability of the suit; one of the objections is that the suit is barred under the Specific Relief Act and that it is liable to be dismissed on the ground of joinder/ non-joinder of the parties. In the pending suit an application under Order-VI Rule 17 CPC was filed for amendment in paragraph no.2 of the plaint. The plaintiff now claims that in paragraph no.2 of the plaint the expression “sold and transferred” has been wrongly typed and, in fact, the correct expression is Patta Raiyati Doami. The application for amendment was resisted by the defendants, primarily on the ground of delay. 4. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mistake in understanding the nature of the transfer occurred because the original transfer deed is in “Kaithi” language. 5. Mr. Ramwatar Choubey, the learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that at the stage of final arguments in the suit the plaintiff cannot be permitted to amend the plaint and, moreover, if the proposed amendment is allowed it would change the nature of right claimed by the plaintiff over the suit land. 6. 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. 6. 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 says 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. 7. 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 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 , the 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. What would be nature of the right, title and interest flowing to the plaintiff by virtue of transfer from Mathura Sahu and Savitri Devi is an issue primarily depending on construction of transfer-deed produced by the plaintiff. Whether the suit land has been sold to the plaintiff or Patta Raiyati Doami right has been transferred by Mathura Sahu and Savitri Devi is really not relevant, the fact remains that on the basis of the deed executed by the legal heirs of the recorded raiyats the plaintiff has laid a claim over the suit property. Whether the suit land has been sold to the plaintiff or Patta Raiyati Doami right has been transferred by Mathura Sahu and Savitri Devi is really not relevant, the fact remains that on the basis of the deed executed by the legal heirs of the recorded raiyats the plaintiff has laid a claim over the suit property. Construction of a document is always an issue which can be raised at the stage of final hearing in the suit. The proposed amendment would definitely not change the nature of the suit and the defendants would not be taken by surprise if the proposed amendment is permitted in the plaint. The trial Judge, however, has rejected the amendment only on the ground that under proviso to Order-VI Rule 17 CPC no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial in the suit has commenced. The trial Judge in the process has over-looked the fundamental test which has been incorporated under Rule 17 CPC itself, that is, whether the amendment is necessary for adjudicating the real controversy involved in the suit. Order-VI Rule 17 CPC which permits amendment in the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings is founded on the principles of equity, justice and good conscience. 9. Viewed thus, and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 02.08.2014 is set-aside. The application for amendment is allowed and the defendants are permitted to file additional written-statement, however, only to the extent amendment in paragraph no.2 of the plaint has been allowed. 10. The writ petition stands allowed.