JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners were substituted in place of the plaintiff who had instituted Title Suit No. 115 of 2010 for a decree for declaration that sale deeds dated 31.08.2010, 01.09.2010, 08.09.2010 and 09.09.2010 are void, ab-initio, illegal and therefore, liable to be cancelled and for a declaration that the defendant nos. to 6 have not acquired any title over the properties comprised under the aforesaid sale-deeds. 2. The suit was dismissed. Aggrieved, the original plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No. 14 of 2015. In the pending appeal, the petitioners filed an application for amendment in paragraph no. 17 of the plaint on the ground that there was inconsistent statements made in the plaint such as; there was no previous partition by metes and bounds and at the same time it was asserted that there was amicable settlement between the family members. This application has been dismissed by the trial judge by the impugned order dated 04.08.2017. 3. The fundamental test when amendment in the pleadings can be permitted is whether the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. This requirement in law has been incorporated under Order VI Rule 17 CPC itself. By the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment Act, 1999 a limitation on the powers of the Court has been incorporated under Rule 17 CPC by adding a proviso therein. It provides that parties shall not be permitted to amend their pleadings after trial in the suit has commenced, however, there is an exception to the aforesaid limitation under proviso to Rule 17 CPC. If a party to the suit satisfies the Court that in-spite of due diligence the matter could not have been raised before commencement of the trial, amendment in the pleadings can be permitted. This is not the case pleaded by the petitioners. The case set-up by the petitioners is that to clarify a somewhat ambiguous statement made in paragraph no. 17, they intended to add a new paragraph below paragraph no. 17, which reads as under : (i) From paragraph no. 17 of the plaint, the statement “there has been no partition by metes and bounds in between the sons of Ramdeo Mistry but” be removed. 17, they intended to add a new paragraph below paragraph no. 17, which reads as under : (i) From paragraph no. 17 of the plaint, the statement “there has been no partition by metes and bounds in between the sons of Ramdeo Mistry but” be removed. (ii) After Paragraph No. 17 of the plaint, a new Paragraph No. 17(a) be inserted with the following expression - “17(a) That Ramdeo Mistry was owning and possessing 0.95 acre of land in plot no. 240 under Khata No. 37, 0.39 acre in Plot No. 34/1136 under Khata No. 65 (Total 0.50 acre was purchased in this plot but only 0.39 acre remained in possession of Ramdeo Mistry), 0.91 acre in Plot No. 34/1127 under Khata No. 56/2, 0.21 acre in Plot No. 34/D under Khata No. 45, 0.23 acre in Plot No. 98 under Khata No. 05, 0.21 acre in Plot No. 234 under Khata No. 37 of village Khanwa. In aforesaid land of Ramdeo Mistry, his ancestral purchased and acquired through settlement is included. In partition between the sons of Ramdeo Mistry, the plaintiff was allotted 0.40 acre in Plot No. 240 under Khata No. 37 bounded as North-Rasta, South-Pachu Singh, East-Bhola Mistry and West-Sabeshar Mahto and 0.56 acre in Plot No. 34 under Khata No. 56 bounded as North : School and Pachu Mistry, South : Bhola Mistry, East-Road and West-Lakhan Mistry of village Khanwa. On the basis of Takhta allotted to him he acquired all sorts of title and possession over the same and the defendant Nos. 7 and 8 had executed the sale deeds in favour of their respective sons with respect of the portion of the allotted land of the plaintiff which did not convey any title and possession to them.” 4. The schedule of properties as described in the plaint reads as under : Khata No. Plot No. Area 37 240 6 ? + 6? = 12 ? decimals boundary which is false and incorrect as mentioned in the sale deed. 56 34/1127 3¼ + 3¼ = 6½ decimals “ 34/1137 2¾ + 2¾ = 5 ½ decimals 65 34/1136 2½ + 2½ = 5 decimals 45 34/17 1½ + 1½ = 3 decimals 5. A bare reading of the schedule of properties in Title Suit No. 115 of 2010 and the proposed paragraph under paragraph no. 56 34/1127 3¼ + 3¼ = 6½ decimals “ 34/1137 2¾ + 2¾ = 5 ½ decimals 65 34/1136 2½ + 2½ = 5 decimals 45 34/17 1½ + 1½ = 3 decimals 5. A bare reading of the schedule of properties in Title Suit No. 115 of 2010 and the proposed paragraph under paragraph no. 17(a) sought to be incorporated in the plaint would disclose that now the plaintiffs intend to plead altogether new facts. Lands comprised under different khata number and plot number, which are not the suit schedule properties, have been mentioned in the new paragraph no. 17(a). After the trial in Title Suit No. 115 of 2010 was concluded, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to plead such new facts which otherwise are not by way of explanation or elaboration of the facts pleaded in the plaint. The trial judge has rightly observed that such amendment would cause serious prejudice to the defendants. The proposed amendments are intended at filling-up lacuna in the plaintiffs' case. The appellate court has rightly dismissed this application, however, in my opinion, erroneously observed that such plea can be considered at the final hearing in the appeal. 6. In the above facts, finding no ground to interfere in the matter, the writ petition is dismissed.