JUDGEMENT : The petitioner, who is plaintiff in Title Suit No.48 of 2013, is aggrieved of order dated 04.03.2017 by which amendment in the plaint has been declined by the trial judge. 2. At the outset it needs to be indicated that at the time when the plaintiff filed an application for amendment, by that time issues in the suit were not settled. The plaint was presented on 19.02.2013, the defendant has filed his written statement on 17.05.2014 and the amendment application was filed on 03.11.2014. 3. 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. 4. The plaintiff has pleaded that during his life-time their father has purchased the suit schedule property through two separate sale-deeds and during the life-time of their father they were living in jointness; the plaintiff and the defendant are real brothers. Claiming his half share in the house which was jointly constructed by the plaintiff and the defendant over the land which was purchased by their father, the plaintiff seeks a declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. It is not in dispute that the land comprised under Plot Nos.500 and 501, measuring 7 kathas was purchased by the plaintiff on 19.05.2004 and the defendant has purchased about 9 decimals land from Upendra Kumar Singh through sale-deed dated 18.07.2011 and plaintiff has also purchased southern side of land of Plot No.449 from Rakesh Kumar Singh through sale-deed dated 29.02.2012. The plaintiff through amendment application is seeking to incorporate the following facts: i. After para 14 a new para 14 (a) be inserted in following manner:- 14.(A) That, in order to appreciate plaintiff's case, plaintiff submits that during the life time of Jainath Singh, the property was purchased vide from Regd. Sale-Deed being no.12085 and 12084 dated 19.12.1988 in the name of plaintiff and defendant who were residing in jointness with their father and subsequently, the plaintiff and defendant alongwith their father jointly constructed residential houses there upon on for southern side of Plot No.449 and started living therein since 1995. That, it is also pertinent to mention here that subsequently both plaintiff and defendant have constructed separate house on suit land and earlier residential house on suit plot remain ejmail between plaintiff and defendant for all purpose. That, it is also pertinent to mention here that subsequently both plaintiff and defendant have constructed separate house on suit land and earlier residential house on suit plot remain ejmail between plaintiff and defendant for all purpose. (ii) In relief portion in relief (a) after the word “below” following be inserted “to the extent of plaintiff's half share in lands and house constructed by the plaintiff and defendant jointly prior to execution of Sale-Deed No.1120 dated 29.02.2012 in favour of plaintiff and Deed No.11587 dated 18.07.2011 in favour of defendant. (iii) In relief (a) portion after the word “below”, the word “of the plaint” be deleted. 5. Order VI Rule 17 CPC provides that the court may permit either party to amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. 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, 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 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”. 6. 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”. 6. Through amendment all that the plaintiff intends is to specify the instrument through which his father has purchased the suit property on 19.12.1988 and a declaration that he has got half share in the land and house constructed by the parties jointly. Whether the plaintiff can claim half share in the aforesaid property or not, and whether the defendant has valid title by virtue of deed dated 18.07.2011 or not, are the issues for trial and at this stage merely on the basis of deed dated 18.07.2011 through which the defendant has laid a claim over a part of the suit schedule property the proposed amendment cannot be declined. At this stage merits of the amendment cannot be looked into by the trial court. The fundamental test when amendment in the pleadings shall be permitted is whether the proposed amendment is necessary for adjudicating real dispute between the parties. The expression “real question in controversy between the parties” in Rule 17 CPC must be examined in the context of pleadings of the parties. From pleadings of the parties and the stand taken by the plaintiff, more specifically in paragraph no.3 of the plaint, it is found that the proposed amendments are by way of elaboration of his stand which the plaintiff has already taken in the plaint. 7. Apparently, the trial judge has committed serious errors in law and therefore the impugned order dated 04.03.2017 warrants interference of this Court. Accordingly, it is set-aside and the writ petition is allowed. The application dated 03.11.2014 for amendment stands allowed. The defendant shall be permitted to file additional written statement and on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the materials brought on record, the trial judge shall proceed to settle issues in the suit.