JUDGMENT : The petitioners, who are defendants in Title (P) Suit No.69 of 2017/31 of 2008, are aggrieved of order dated 16.02.2018 by which amendment in the plaint has been permitted. 2. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that after the suit has gone for trial amendment in the plaint cannot be permitted. 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. 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. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC also 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”. 4. Through application dated 27.11.2017, the plaintiffs seek the following amendments in the plaint: “(i) Sarlu Mahto died admittedly in the year 1993 and Ajhola Mahatwain died in the year 1965 leaving behind Gopal Mahto – the plaintiff as the only son but on account of typing mistake in the genealogical table Banarasi Devi was shown having died in the year 1993 which should be deleted from the plaint by deleting the words below Banarasi Debi “Died in 1993”. (ii) At page 5 of the plaint at para 2 in the G.T. Below Mahabir Mahto the two letters “R.T.” should be mentioned. (iii) In para 19 of the plaint in the third line the words “in the year 2006” should be deleted from the plaint. (iv) In Para 21 in the second line the words “And Dina Mahto” should be deleted from the plaint. (v) In schedule I at page 37 of the plaint the area given in plot no.689 Bari II class should be “0.12” acres which should be substituted by deleting the incorrect area “0.02” . (vi) The class of land of plot no.541 of schedule I should be Dhani I and hence D.I. should be substituted by deleting “Do”. (vii) That while giving the lands of J.B.No.37 of Burhibagicha in schedule I, the left out plot no.55 D.III-0.05 should be included after plot no.541-D.I-0.08 (viii) That in schedule II at page 39 of the plaint the plot no.683- Do-0.33” should be deleted from the plaint as the same was incorrectly given in schedule II. (ix) In schedule II at page 40 of the plaint the class of land of plot no.547 should be inserted “Dhani III” after deleting the word “Do”. (x) In schedule III the incorrect plot no.”829” should be deleted by inserting the correct plot no. “1829” should be inserted. (xi) In schedule V the incorrect plot no. “774” should be deleted by inserting correct plot no. “744” in that place. (xii) After the end of schedule IX of the plaint before valuation chart the following sentence should be added in the plaint at page 46 of the plaint – the following words should be inserted in the plaint- “Ahari plot 742 with an area of 1.80 acres should be declared as joint property of the descendants of Hubi Mahto as the same is impartible”. (xiii) That the land described in para 12 of the plaint on account of bonafide mistake could not be described in the schedule of the plaint and as such one schedule (x) may kindly be inserted after the averments sought to be amended regarding “Ahari plot no.742” schedule X in mouza Burhibagicha No.289 within P.S Madhupur, P.O Saptar, Sub-division Madhupur, Distt. Deoghar. Deoghar. Plot No. Class of land Area 787 At present reclaimed into good 1.20 Dhani land out of Anawadi khata recorded valued at as parti kadim settlement taken from prodhan Rs.78.00 bounded Towards:- North Dhani land of Lakhu Mahto South Nij Dhani land East Mouza Kalyanpur West Remaining parti land (xiv) That the total valuation chart should be increased to 50531.25 by adding Rs.78.00.” 5. A bare glance at the aforesaid proposed amendments would reveal that these amendments are necessary because of typographical errors which have crept in the plaint. For example, description of the area-0.12 acres which should have been 0.02 acres, plot number which should have been 744 but written as 774, schedule of lands, class of lands etc. It is not in dispute that the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed soon after the issues were framed in the suit. The trial judge has recorded a finding that except amendment at clause nos. (iii) and (iv), the other amendments are formal in nature. 6. In the above facts, I find that the trial judge has rightly permitted amendment in the plaint and while so, challenge to the impugned order dated 16.02.2018 must fail. 7. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.