JUDGMENT : The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 135 of 1999, is aggrieved of order dated 21.01.2017 passed in Misc. Case No. 09 of 2015 by which his application for amendment in the plaint of Title Suit No. 135 of 1999 and the judgment and decree in the said suit has been dismissed. 2. Title Suit No. 135 of 1999 was instituted by the plaintiff for a decree for specific performance of the contract in respect of 7½ decimals of land out of R.S. Plot No. 1450 covered under Khata No. 85 situated at village-Missirgonda, P.S. Bariatu, District-Ranchi. The description of the suit land has been given under the schedule appended to the plaint. The suit was decreed vide judgment dated 31.08.2012 and the plaintiff levied Execution Case No. 14 of 2012 for execution of the judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 135 of 1999. In the pending execution case, the petitioner filed an application for amendment, however, simultaneously he has alsofiled a similar application in the Court which has decreed Title Suit No. 135 of 1999. This application has been registered as Misc. Case No. 09 of 2015. In his application dated 02.03.2015, the petitioner has averred as under : 3. “That it is to state and submit that due to inadvertance, and ignorance, the Khata number of suit plot no. 1450/A, was mentioned in plaint para 5' and in schedule of plaint of Title Suit no. 135/99 filed by petitioner against opposite parties for specific performance of contract in respect of part of R.S. Plot no. 1450, marked as R.S. Plot no. 1450/A of village Missirgonda, PS-Bariatu, District-Ranchi as 85, and no objection whatsoever was ever raised even by the defendants regarding said mentioned khata number and the suit was ultimately disposed of, by terms of judgment and decree dated 14.09.12 in favour of plaintiff, herein the petitioner. 5. That the petitioner has filed an Execution Case No. 14 of 2012, to levy execution of said decree, which is pending at this court. 6. That in said Execution case, the court was pleased to call for a valuation report from the District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi, vide letter no. 5. That the petitioner has filed an Execution Case No. 14 of 2012, to levy execution of said decree, which is pending at this court. 6. That in said Execution case, the court was pleased to call for a valuation report from the District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi, vide letter no. 04, dated 20.01.2015, and in compliance whereof said Authority instead of sending valuation report, demanded the ward number, where the suit land situated through his letter available on record of Execution Case No. 14/12 and the petitioner furnished the ward number of the area, where the suit land situated, as Ward No. 2' within Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, through a petition but later petitioner was advised to get the ward number incorporated in the judgment, Decree and plaint of the original suit in the interest of justice for better effectuation of the decree. 7. That in course of preparation of said amendment petition, the petitioner noticed that khata number of suit plot viz. part of R.S. Plot No. 1450, marked as R.S. Plot No. 1450/A is mentioned as Khata No. 3' decree of earlier Partition Suit No. 181 of 1941 Rai Saheb Ganpat Rai and others Vrs. Munda Oraon and others whereunder suit plot was allotted to the share of Execution of defendant no. 1', which was later merged under defendant no. 2', and it is submitted that petitioner had no knowledge about the same earlier.” 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, 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. 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. ........“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. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to inadvertence description of the suit property was not correctly recorded in the plaint and, therefore, the proposed amendment which would not change the nature of the suit should have been allowed by the trial judge. Further contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that dismissal of the application for amendment would deprive the plaintiff of the fruits of decree in Title Suit No. 135 of 1999, as a second suit would be hopelessly barred by limitation. 5. I am not inclined to accept the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. In the first place, after the parties have gone for trial, laid their evidence, oral as well as documentary, amendment in the pleadings and the judgment and decree prepared pursuant to the decision in the suit can be permitted only in exceptional circumstances; one of the circumstances would be that there is an apparent contradiction in the pleadings and the documents on record. The alleged agreement for sale between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 was an oral agreement. The trial judge has recorded a specific finding that during the trial, the parties have led evidence, oral as well as documentary, in respect of R.S. Plot No. 1450 covered under Khata No. 85 and not under Khata No. 3. The alleged agreement for sale between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 1 was an oral agreement. The trial judge has recorded a specific finding that during the trial, the parties have led evidence, oral as well as documentary, in respect of R.S. Plot No. 1450 covered under Khata No. 85 and not under Khata No. 3. Moreover, a plea of ignorance cannot be pleaded by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance; the plaintiff must assert correct description of the property which allegedly has been purchased by him. In paragraph no. 9 of his application for amendment, the plaintiff, however, has taken an altogether different plea. He has asserted that in the judgment and decree in Partition Suit No. 181 of 1941, the plot which was allotted to the defendants was comprised within Khata No. 3. Now, this would be a question of fact. Whether the land allotted to the defendants in the partition suit which allegedly is comprised under Khata No. 3 is the suit schedule property in Title Suit No. 135 of 1999 and not the land comprised under Khata No. 85, is an issue which would completely change the foundational facts on which the suit was instituted. 6. By now it is well-settled that amendment in the pleadings cannot be claimed as a matter of right [refer “Ragu Thilak D. John Vs. S. Rayappan” reported in (2001) 2 SCC 472 ]. 7. In paragraph nos. 5 and 6 of the plaint, the petitioner has pleaded that after the defendant no. 1 took permission under Section 26 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act vide L.C. Case No. 284 of 1999, he approached him for execution of the sale-deed. The trial judge has recorded a finding that the permission granted to the defendant no. 1 is in respect of the land comprised under Khata No. 85. Evidently, the proposed amendment would not only be contrary to the pleadings and the evidence laid during the trial, it would take the defendants by surprise and cause serious prejudice to them. 8. In the above facts, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.01.2017, the writ petition is dismissed.