ORDER : The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.113 of 2013, is aggrieved of the order dated 06.12.2016 by which the application dated 18.06.2015 seeking amendment in paragraph no.32 of the plaint has been rejected. 2. Plea urged on behalf of the petitioner is that at the initial stage of the suit, when issues have yet not been settled, all amendments which are necessary for adjudicating the real controversy in the suit must be allowed and at this stage merits of the amendment cannot be looked into. 3. Title Suit No.113 of 2013 has been instituted for a decree for declaration that gift-deeds no.4483, 4484 and 4485, all dated 22.05.1982 are forged, fabricated, null and void, ineffective and not binding on the plaintiff and by virtue of these gift-deeds the defendants have not acquired any right or interest in the properties comprised in those gift-deeds. The plaintiff has pleaded that the parties are descendants of a common ancestor namely, Sardar Hem Singh, who had acquired several properties during his life-time from his own income from agriculture. Sardar Hem Singh had four sons and three daughters and during his life-time he had entered into a family arrangement with his sons and distributed all his landed properties, house and homestead lands amongst his four sons. During the life-time of Sardar Hem Singh his two sons namely, Darshan Singh and Swaroop Singh met with premature death and his younger son namely, Surender Singh took control of the family, however, Sardar Hem Singh who felt that he was not being looked properly moved with his wife and his widow daughter Amarjeet Kaur @ Amarto to Quarter No.-L4/53, Old Baradwari, Sakchi which was allotted in favour of Gopal Kaur by TISCO Limited in lieu of the land surrenderd by Hem Singh for construction of New Kalimati Road, Fly Over Bridge and Slag Road. After sometime, the 3rd son of Sardar Hem Singh namely, Darshan Singh died in a road accident. Since February, 1981 Sardar Hem Singh fell ill and was brought by his younger son Surender Singh to his house. He died on 06.09.1982 after his prolonged illness. The plaintiff has pleaded that Sardar Hem Singh had lost his sense of identification and normal sense of perception and understanding. During that period he was not able to recognise persons. Since February, 1981 Sardar Hem Singh fell ill and was brought by his younger son Surender Singh to his house. He died on 06.09.1982 after his prolonged illness. The plaintiff has pleaded that Sardar Hem Singh had lost his sense of identification and normal sense of perception and understanding. During that period he was not able to recognise persons. The plaintiff has further asserted that Sardar Hem Singh used to sign in Gurmukhi and he had never executed any document by putting his L.T.I. Infact, he has executed a registered sale-deed dated 31.05.1969 in favour of his grandson namely, Rabinder Singh wherein he has signed the document in Gurmukhi. The plaintiff has given details of various transactions by Sardar Hem Singh to demonstrate that the registered gift deeds no. 4483, 4484 and 4485, all dated 22.05.1982 and the WILL dated 25.05.1982 were forged and fabricated and not executed by Sardar Hem Singh. Facts pleaded in the paragraph nos.24 and 25 of the plaint, which are relevant for deciding the legality of the impugned order dated 06.12.2016, are extracted below: 24. That, in the year 1989, Surender Singh filed Title Suit No.-88/89 against Raghbir Singh & others legal heirs of Late Sawroop Singh (present Plaintiff No.-2) claiming right title on a portion of R.S. Plot No.-2431 in which the present Plaintiff No.-4 Hardeep Singh son of the late Darshan Singh also joined as intervener, in aforesaid Title Suit No. 88/89 originally, the claim of the plaintiff, (late Surender Singh) was originally based only on continuous possession since life time of his father without any whisper about executing registration of regd. Deeds of gifts and the present defendants tried to introduce a complete new claim based on one of the said deed of gift of the suit property of T.S. No.- 88/89 claimed to have obtained by them through Regd. Gift Deed by Sardar Hem Singh in their favour in 22.05.1982. Suppressing the story of any other deed of gift manufactured & fabricated in their favour on any date. 25. That, in fact for the first time only on 29.11.2010, by separate list, the defendant produced one Deed of Gift No.-4482, dated 22.05.1982 during his evidence in T.S. No. 88/89 through which the plaintiff could come to know about existence of alleged deed of gift forged & fabricated purported to be executed by Hem Singh in their favour. 25. That, in fact for the first time only on 29.11.2010, by separate list, the defendant produced one Deed of Gift No.-4482, dated 22.05.1982 during his evidence in T.S. No. 88/89 through which the plaintiff could come to know about existence of alleged deed of gift forged & fabricated purported to be executed by Hem Singh in their favour. Present defendants disclosed the fact of existence of one such Regd. Deed of gift purported to be executed by Hem Singh. The present plaintiffs stated enquiry of the matter, tried obtained certified copy from Chaibasa of the aforesaid gift of deed & Astronished to come to know on search at Chaibasa record room of Dist. Registrar for the first time that not only one, but on the same date i.e. on 22.05.1982 Surender Singh in collusion with defendants & scribe Surender Singh in collusion of his family members fraudulently managed to forged, fabricate & manufactured 04 (four) such Regd. Deed of gift in favour of family members of Surender Singh and his family (present defendants) purported to be executed by Sardar Hem Singh in different names of his family members by putting L.T.I. In the name of Hem Singh & by false personification in respect of all lands of Hem Singh manufactured 04 (four) Regd. Deeds of gifts no. 4482, 4483, 4484 and 4485 dated 22.05.1982 behind back and knowledge of other legal heirs of late Hem Singh, taking advantage of the situation stated above only to deprive the plaintiff of his legitimate claim & share of the properties left by Hem Singh. But till date the Defendants never disclosed about existence of 3 (three) others deeds of Gift No. 4483, 4484 & 4485. 4. The defendant nos.1 to 5 have filed their written statement raising various plea on the maintainability of the suit, however, the plaint averments have been partly admitted by them. They have pleaded that in Title Suit No.88 of 1989, the present petitioner had intervened and he was served a copy of the amendment application dated 10.01.2008 in which execution of a gift-deed dated 22.05.1982 was pleaded. The petitioner, who had filed his objection on 24.01.2008 to the amendment application dated 10.01.2008, thus had knowledge of the gift-deeds. They have pleaded that in Title Suit No.88 of 1989, the present petitioner had intervened and he was served a copy of the amendment application dated 10.01.2008 in which execution of a gift-deed dated 22.05.1982 was pleaded. The petitioner, who had filed his objection on 24.01.2008 to the amendment application dated 10.01.2008, thus had knowledge of the gift-deeds. Regarding the gift-deeds dated 22.05.1982 the stand taken by the defendant nos.1 to 5 is reflected in paragraph no.29 of the written statement, wherein the defendants have pleaded as under : 29. That regarding the statements made in paragraph nos. 24 and 25 in the plaint, it is submitted that Raghubir Singh, son of late Swaroop Singh is not the Defendant in this suit, and he is not at all a Defendant in this suit. However, the entire facts mentioned wrongly by the plaintiff in paragraph 24 of the plaint, have been very well discussed and considered by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Jamshedpur, in Title Suit No. 88/89, and the aforesaid Title Suit No. 88/89 has been decreed in favour of the answering proforma Defendants vide Judgment dated 9-5-2014, and in the aforesaid Title Suit No. 88/89, the documents of Misc. Case No. 322/90-91 under Section 83 CNT Act, was proved in Title Suit No. 88/89, where the present plaintiff, Hardeep Singh, son of Late Darshan Singh, was the party and in the aforesaid application under Section 83 CNT Act, it was very well mentioned regarding the Deed of Gift No. 4482 dated 22-5-82. Moreover, in Misc. Case No. 1110/1991-92 and Misc. Case No. 1112/91-92 under Section 9 of Bihar & Orissa Municipal Act, were filed by Sardar Surender Singh against Raghubir Singh, and the aforesaid documents were also proved in Title Suit No. 88/89 where it was specifically mentioned regarding the Deed of Gift No. 4482 dated 22-5-82, and the Intervener Defendant, Hardeep Singh, was contesting the aforesaid Title Suit No. 88/89 and he had full knowledge regarding the aforesaid Deed of Gift since the year 1991-92. Moreover, the aforesaid facts have been very well mentioned vide order dated 14-3-2008 passed in Title Suit No. 88/89 by the learned subordinate Judge-VI, at Jamshedpur, in course of passing order against the Amendment petition filed on behalf of the answering proforma defendants dated 10-1-2008, and the rejoinder dated 24-1-2008, and the learned court has been pleased to observe clearly that from perusal of the Amendment application and the document filed on behalf of the plaintiffs answering proforma defendants and also earlier application dated 3-4-1991, which is already on record, it appears that Surender Singh was willing to amend his plaint in the year 1991, but in the mean time he fell seriously ill and ultimately died in the year 1994 and so amendment could not be brought into the record and from perusal of photocopy of the certified copy of Misc. Case No. 1112/91-92, filed under Section 89 CNT Act, it appears that in the body of that order the then settlement officer has mentioned about the existence of Gifts Deed bearing No. 4482 dated 22-5-82 and Title Suit No. 88/89, and no conclusive order was passed due to pendency of present suit and so by way of amendment the Plaintiffs answering proforma defendants the facts of existence of Gift Deed, it is completely not a new fact rather the fact regarding the existence of Gift Deed was earlier placed before the competent authority also, and the aforesaid order dated 14-3-2008 was not challenged by the Intervener Defendant or any other Defendants and so the matter was never suppressed regarding the Gift Deed and the same are genuine documents and the same are not manufactured and forged document, but as no challenge of the registered Deeds of Gifts executed and registered by Sardar Hem Singh in favour of Surender Singh, Amarjeet Kaur, Sukhbir Singh, and Harcharan Singh was ever made so the allegations made in this Suit regarding the knowledge of the Plaintiff for the first time, are imaginary, false and incorrect. On 10-1-2008, a petition under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 15 CPC was filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs answering proforma defendants and the copy of the same was served to the Defendants Raghubir Singh and Intervener Defendant Hardeep Singh, and in the aforesaid Amendment petition, after paragraph 6 in the plaint of Title Suit No. 88/89, the amendment was sought for to add as paragraph 6(a) in the plaint and in that Amendment petition, it was specifically mentioned that the portions of R.S. Plot No. 2431, measuring 0.02.40 Hects., corresponding to 1971-72 survey Plot No. 45 under 71-72 Khata No. 1520, belongs to the answering proforma defendant sand the aforesaid land is own Rasta of the answering proforma defendant and the aforesaid land measuring 0.02.04 Hects. under 1971-72 Survey Plot No. 45, Khata No. 150, along with the other lands, have been gifted by Hem Singh in favour of Surender Singh, son of Hem Singh, and Amarjeet Kaur by means of registered Gift Deed No. 4482 dated 22-5-82, and by means of WILL in favour of Amarjeet Kaur and Harcharan Singh, and the Intervener Defendant Hardeep Singh and other Defendants of TS 88/89 also filed their rejoinder dated 24-1-2008 supported by affidavit and in paragraph 9 of the rejoinder dated 24-1-2008 filed in Title Suit No. 88/89 the aforesaid documents in course of hearing of this Suit and/or submitting preliminary issue before hearing of this Suit regarding maintainability of there suit on the basis of the knowledge of the Plaintiff, Hardeep Singh regarding Deed of Gifts No. 4482 dated 22-5-82 and the WILL dated 7-6-82. 5. In the pending suit, applications dated 09.01.2015 and 18.06.2015 were filed by the plaintiff seeking amendment in the plaint. While application dated 09.01.2015 was allowed on the ground that the amendments sought were formal in nature and were occasioned on account of typographical errors, application dated 18.06.2015 was dismissed by the trial judge holding that by introducing paragraph no.32 in the plaint the plaintiff intends to change his previous stand. The plaintiff, in paragraph no.32 of the plaint, has pleaded as under: 32. The plaintiff, in paragraph no.32 of the plaint, has pleaded as under: 32. That cause of action for this suit arose on and from 29.11.2010 & thereafter when the plaintiffs came to know about existence of aforesaid deeds of gifts, being produced in court for first time in T.S. No.88/89 filed by the defendants claiming title through one of the alleged deeds of gift. 6. In their written statement, the defendants have taken a stand that no cause of action as pleaded by the plaintiff has arisen on 29.11.2010 or on any other date. 7. The proposed amendment in the application dated 18.06.2015 is extracted below:- “That, inspite of knowledge about the forged & fabricated Deeds of Gifts & Will manufactured by Defendant with help of Surender Singh (Late father of Defendant No.1) and Will by Harcharan Singh, the Defendants never raised any claim of right, title, interest, possession on the basis of alleged Gifts Deeds & Will but only on 19.05.2011 at 7-8 A.M. on sudden death of their mother & our aunty Amarjeet Kour, the Defendant openly gave out threats to the plaintiffs to implicate all his family members in false case of murder of his mother and further gave out open threats that henceforth he will forcibly occupy alleged gifted lands, houses, shops & lodging hotel standing thereon belonging to plaintiff & his family and brought on street, which has gave rise the actual apprehension of infringement of right. The plaintiff & his family giving rise the cause of action for this suit for declaration.” 8. Mr. Rohitashya Roy, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that once the defendants have disclosed their defence and thrown a specific challenge to the cause of action as pleaded by the plaintiff in paragraph no.32 of the plaint, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to substitute the same through a different distinct cause of action. In support of his contention the learned counsel has referred to the decisions in “Ma Shwe Mya Vs. Maung Mo Hnaung” reported in AIR 1922 PC 249 and “Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others” reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 . 9. Order VI Rule 17 CPC provides that the court may permit either party to amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. Maung Mo Hnaung” reported in AIR 1922 PC 249 and “Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others” reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 . 9. Order VI Rule 17 CPC provides that the court may permit either party to amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. Rule 17 CPC itself incorporates the fundamental principle for exercise of powers by 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. Under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC a 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, 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”. 10. From pleadings of the parties, it appears that it is not in dispute that both the parties are claiming through the common ancestor namely, Sardar Hem Singh. It is also not in dispute that when the application dated 18.06.2015 for amendment in the plaint was filed issues in the suit were not settled. 10. From pleadings of the parties, it appears that it is not in dispute that both the parties are claiming through the common ancestor namely, Sardar Hem Singh. It is also not in dispute that when the application dated 18.06.2015 for amendment in the plaint was filed issues in the suit were not settled. The learned counsel for the defendants has contended that once the plaintiff had knowledge of the gift-deed dated 22.05.1982 at least on 24.01.2008 when he had filed rejoinder to the amendment application filed in Title Suit No.88 of 1989, or at least on 14.03.2008 when the said amendment application was allowed, the period of limitation under Article 56 of the Limitation Act must start to run from the said date and while so, the suit which was instituted on 07.10.2013 was barred by limitation, but now by pleading a new cause of action on 19.05.2011 all that the plaintiff intends is to fill-up the lacuna in his case, which is not permissible in law. Stand taken by the plaintiff is that it was for the first time on 29.11.2010 when by a separate list of documents the defendant produced gift-deed no.4482 dated 22.05.1982 during his evidence in Title Suit No.88 of 1989. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a bare glance at the plaint averments would reveal that even if it is assumed that the cause of action arose on 29.11.2010, Title Suit No.113 of 2013 which was instituted on 07.10.2013 was within the period of limitation, that is, within 3 years. 11. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the case pleaded by the plaintiff, that the cause of action arose “on and from 29.11.2010 and thereafter”, has been challenged by the defendants, however, it needs to be kept in mind that 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, and the suit is still at the initial stage. It has been held by the Supreme Court that there is no absolute bar on the powers of the court to permit amendment in the pleadings, even in cases where ordinarily amendment would be declined if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation [refer “L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. Vs. It has been held by the Supreme Court that there is no absolute bar on the powers of the court to permit amendment in the pleadings, even in cases where ordinarily amendment would be declined if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation [refer “L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. Vs. Jardine Skinner and Co.” reported in AIR 1957 SC 357 ]. No doubt, the plaintiff must specifically aver the dates on which the cause of action has arisen, but then it cannot be over-looked that each and every detail of the case which may come through evidence need not necessarily be incorporated in the pleadings. Order VII Rule 1 CPC gives an indication what should be the material particular which a plaint should contain. Whether the cause of action has arisen on 29.11.2010 and thereafter or not, and whether it has arisen on 19.05.2011 or not, are the issues for evidence. As widely accepted, cause of action is a bundle of facts which the plaintiff must prove. The stand taken by the defendants, that once it is admitted that the plaintiff had knowledge of the gift-deeds dated 22.05.1982 way-back on 24.01.2008 the suit seeking a declaration that the gift-deeds dated 22.05.1982 is null and void would be barred by limitation, is also an issue which cannot be decided at this stage. The issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts. In “Pankaja and Another Vs. Yellappa (Dead) By LRS. and Others” reported in (2004) 6 SCC 415 , the issue which was raised before the Supreme Court is recorded in paragraph no.13 of the reported judgment, thus; “13. But the question for our consideration is whether in cases where the delay has extinguished the right of the party by virtue of expiry of the period of limitation prescribed in law, can the court in the exercise of its discretion take away the right accrued to another party by allowing such belated amendments.” 12. The Supreme Court has held as under: “14. The law in this regard is also quite clear and consistent that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation an amendment should not be allowed. Discretion in such cases depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court has held as under: “14. The law in this regard is also quite clear and consistent that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation an amendment should not be allowed. Discretion in such cases depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. The jurisdiction to allow or not allow an amendment being discretionary, the same will have to be exercised on a judicious evaluation of the facts and circumstances in which the amendment is sought. If the granting of an amendment really subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation the same should be allowed. There can be no straitjacket formula for allowing or disallowing an amendment of pleadings. Each case depends on the factual background of that case.” 13. In “Ragu Thilak D. John Vs. S. Rayappan” reported in (2001) 2 SCC 472 , a specific plea was raised that the relief sought through amendment was barred by limitation. This issue has been dealt with by the Supreme Court thus; “The amendment sought could not be declined. The dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation. The plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is arguable in the circumstances of the case. The plea of limitation being disputed could be made a subject-matter of the issue after allowing the amendment prayed for.” 14. In the above background, it must be held that on the ground that the proposed amendment is intended to avoid limitation, amendment in the cause of action paragraph cannot be declined. In fact, in the present proceeding the question of limitation cannot be decided. It is well-settled that merits of the amendment cannot be looked into at this stage. After all, the defendants would have the opportunity to file additional written statement and the issue on the cause of action can be contested by them [refer “Usha Devi Vs. Rijwan Ahamd and Ors.” reported in (2008) 3 SCC 717 ]. Moreover, in Title Suit No.88 of 1989 it was only one gift-deed which was produced by one of the defendants whereas, in the present suit the plaintiff has challenged three gift-deeds and the Will dated 25.05.1982. 15. The controversy sought to be raised by the respondents can be examined from another angle also. Moreover, in Title Suit No.88 of 1989 it was only one gift-deed which was produced by one of the defendants whereas, in the present suit the plaintiff has challenged three gift-deeds and the Will dated 25.05.1982. 15. The controversy sought to be raised by the respondents can be examined from another angle also. Assuming that the amendment as sought by the plaintiff is declined still, cause of action as originally pleaded under paragraph no.32 permits the plaintiff to lead evidence on cause of action which arose “on and from 29.11.2010 and thereafter”. The expression “thereafter” would cover the events after 29.11.2010. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the second amendment application was liable to be dismissed on the ground that the facts sought to be incorporated in the plaint were known to the plaintiffs when he filed the first application. There is no absolute bar in law in preferring more than one amendment application by a party. It is true that the facts sought to be introduced by the plaintiff through amendment had occurred prior to the institution of the suit, but there also I find that when issues are yet to be settled and, moreover, the defendants would be permitted to file their additional written statement, the plaintiff cannot be debarred from seeking amendment in the cause of action paragraph. 17. Viewed thus and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, finding serious infirmity in the impugned order dated 06.12.2016 by which the application dated 18.06.2015 for amendment has been declined, the impugned order dated 06.12.2016 is set-aside to the above extent. The amendment shall be incorporated in paragraph no.32, with liberty to the defendants to file additional written statement. 18. The writ petition stands allowed.