JUDGMENT : The petitioners, who are defendant nos. 1 and 2 in Title (Eviction) Suit No.47 of 2010, are aggrieved of order dated 02.06.2014 passed in Title (Eviction) Suit No.47 of 2010 by which amendments in the plaint have been allowed. 2. Title (Eviction) Suit No.47 of 2010 has been instituted for a decree for eviction against the defendants in respect of schedule 'B' properties and for a decree for khas possession to the plaintiffs of the said property. The plaintiffs have claimed themselves absolute owner in possession of the property comprised under Holding No.129 (New) and 155(Old) of Ward No.6. They have pleaded that this property was acquired by the father of the plaintiff nos.1 to 6 by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 02.06.1966 and he came in possession over schedule 'A' property during his life time. After death of their father, the plaintiff nos.1 to 6 became owner of the schedule 'A' properties. During the trial, after the plaintiffs examined one of their witnesses namely, Subash Ranjan Hore as P.W.1, an application seeking the following amendments in the plaint was filed: (a) That, within schedule “A” at page 9 of the plaint for proper identification following boundary may be added butted and bounded as follows:- North Vacant Land South Lane (Gali) and thereafter big Nala East House of Sri Shiv Narayan Singh West Road (b) That, in the aforesaid manner the boundary given in schedule “B” of the plaint may kindly be corrected as follows- In the east, the appearing words “Residence of my client” may be replaced by the words “Remaining portion of schedule 'A' and in the North the appearing “Vacant Land” may be corrected as the shop in occupation of tenant Rajeev Roy.” (c) That, in the para-1 of the plaint, before the appearing word “Possession” in 1st and 6th line the word “in” may be inserted. (d) That, to avoid confusion and by way of clarification in para 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13 of the plaint after the appearing word defendants the word “No.1 & 2” may be added. (d) That, to avoid confusion and by way of clarification in para 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13 of the plaint after the appearing word defendants the word “No.1 & 2” may be added. (e) That, after para-11 a new para as 11(a) may be incorporated as follows:- (f) “That, as apprehended in para-11 of the plaint on the date of filing the suits i.e. on 17.09.2010 the defendant no.2 namely Bhaskar Rajak in collusion with other defendants filed C.P. Case No.1912/2010, on 22.10.2010 against plaintiff no.4 and 8 namely Subhash Ranjan Hore and Sandip Hore and during pendency of the said C.P. Case, it could be disclosed that Late Subodh Ranjan Hore the husband of plaintiff no.7 and Father of plaintiff no.8 who was Karta of the family for being the elder brother of other plaintiffs had filed a C.P. Case No.629/03 against the defendant no.1 and 2 and their brother namely Gyani @ Gyan Rajak under section 323/379/427/447 I.P.C. but after death of said Subodh Ranjan Hore the defendants under fraud and conspiracy got compromised the case with the help of defendant no.3 who declared herself quite falsely the wife of Late Subodh Ranjan Hore, in consequence of which the defendants are presently facing their trial in C.P. Case No.2861/2012 presently pending before the learned court of Sri P.S. Ghosh, J.M.,Dhanbad and accordingly the defendants are wanted in the said case.” And for this act, petitioner shall ever pray. 3. The aforesaid amendments in the plaint have been permitted by the trial judge holding that the proposed amendments would not change the nature of the suit and these are necessary for a just decision in the suit. 4. Sri R.S. Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that not only the proposed amendments were barred under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, through amendments in the schedule of the properties description of the suit schedule properties has been changed. Further contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that an altogether new fact cannot be pleaded by a party to the suit, more particularly, after the suit has gone for trial. 5. Further contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that an altogether new fact cannot be pleaded by a party to the suit, more particularly, after the suit has gone for trial. 5. The plaint does not disclose boundaries of schedule 'A' property, however, schedule 'B' property has been described as under : Schedule “B” Out of Schedule “A” property consisting of 2 (Two) shop now converted into one big Hall area 28' x 10' (approximately) which is butted as:- North Vacant land South Lane East Residence of My client West Road 6. The plaint averments in paragraph no.3 read as under: “That the defendants are monthly tenants under the plaintiffs in respect of Schedule “B” premises forming part of Schedule “A” property on a monthly rental of Rs.1000/- besides electric charges.” 7. Through the proposed amendment now the plaintiffs intend to introduce house of one Shiv Narayan Singh to East of the schedule 'A' property and they want to change description of the schedule 'B' property. 8. 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. 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. 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. 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”. 9. 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. In “Ragu Thilak D. John Vs. S. Rayappan” reported in (2001) 2 SCC 472 it has been observed that amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 10. Sri Sanjay Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the original boundary of schedule 'B' property refers to the expression 'residence of my client' and whether the said Shiv Narayan Singh is one of the clients of the advocate who has sent legal notice or not is the issue for trial. The learned counsel has relied on decisions in “Usha Devi Vs. Rijwan Ahmad & Ors.” reported in 2008 (2) JLJR 46 (SC) and “Joginder Singh Vs. Jogindero” reported in AIR 1996 SC 1654 . 11. This contention is bereft of substance. The legal notice issued by an advocate which is one of the documents produced by the plaintiffs must refer to the plaintiffs themselves and not to any other client of the said advocate. Admittedly, the said Shiv Narayan Singh is not one of the plaintiffs nor he is the one at whose instance the legal notice dated 21.08.2010 has been issued to the defendants. No doubt, an application for amendment in the pleadings should be construed liberally and on technicalities amendment in the pleadings should not be declined and an amendment by way of explanation or elaboration of a fact in the pleadings also must be permitted, however, through amendment, after the suit has gone for trial, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to change the boundaries of the property. In their application for amendments the plaintiffs have pleaded inadvertence due to which the aforesaid error has crept in the schedule of the properties. 12. In a suit for ejection of the tenant, the plaintiff must give the correct description of the suit property. The facts, which were not pleaded in the plaint, if permitted to be incorporated, definitely would take the defendant by surprise. In their application for amendment, the plaintiffs have not asserted that a similar description of schedule 'A' property is recorded in the documents produced by them. Evidently, it is not a case in which the plaintiffs are seeking amendment on the basis of the documents on record. The trial judge has committed a serious error in law in permitting the amendments under clause 'a' and 'b' to the application for amendments. It is not that in every case where a defendant may be suitably compensated or that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit, a party to the suit may be permitted to incorporate any thing and every thing in the pleadings. Tested on the principles governing Order VI Rule 17 CPC, I find that the aforesaid amendment under Clause 'a' and 'b' in the plaint cannot be permitted. Insofar as amendments in clause 'c' and 'd' are concerned these are definitely on account of typographical error and while so, these have rightly been permitted by the trial judge. 13. On amendment in paragraph no.11 of the plaint, Sri R.S. Mazumdar, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has contended that an altogether new fact cannot be introduced in the pleadings by way of amendment, however, I find that these facts, that is, institution of C.P. Case No 1912 of 2010 and C.P. Case No.2861 of 2012 have not been disputed by the defendant nos.1 and 2 and while so, these have rightly been permitted to be incorporated in paragraph no.11 of the plaint. 14. Viewed thus and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 02.06.2014 is set-aside to the above extent and the amendments under clause 'c', 'd' and 'f' are permitted to be incorporated in the plaint. 15. The writ petition stands partly allowed. The defendants shall be permitted to file additional written statement.