JUDGMENT : Counter-affidavit dated 05.12.2018 on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 6 is taken on record. 2. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in Partition Suit No.48 of 2015, is aggrieved of order dated 07.03.2018 by which his application for amendment in the plaint has been rejected. 3. Briefly stated, Partition Suit No.48 of 2015 has been instituted for a preliminary decree for partition to the extent of 1/6th share for the plaintiff in the schedule 'A' property. In Clause-(iii) of paragraph-14 of the plaint the plaintiff has sought a declaration that the registered gift-deeds and the registered sale-deeds are null and void and not binding on him. Clause-(iii) of paragraph-14 reads as under: (iii) That it be also declared that two registered gift vide no.11850 dated 19-10-87 and another vide no.1514 dated 19-2-1991 and registered sale deed no.16697 dated 3-11-1973 and sale deed no. 21699 dated 16-10-1974 are illegal null and void and confirmed no title and the plaintiff is not binding upon the same. 4. During the trial, after the plaintiff examined two witnesses, he has filed an application seeking the following amendments in Clause-(iii) of paragraph-14 of the plaint: 1. It is wrongly written in page no.7 in para 14 of the plaint in clause (iii) after the second Line the figure 19-2-1991 the word and the Sentences “and registered sale deed no.16697 dated 3-11-1973 and sale deed no.21699 dated 16-10-1974 may kindly be deleted from the Cause title of the plaint. And for which act of kindness the plaintiff shall ever pray. 5. By the impugned order dated 07.03.2018, this application for amendment has been rejected on the ground that the plaintiff has failed to establish that inspite of due diligence the matter could not have been pleaded before the commencement of the trial. 6. Mr. Shahdeo Choudhary, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 6, referring to the decisions in “Sogra Begum Vs. Ghousia Begum” reported in (2017) 5 Andh LD 122 and “P. Poondia Gounder Vs. Ramasamy Udayar and Others” reported in (2006) 1 LW 819 and reiterating the stand taken by these respondents in their affidavit dated 05.12.2018, submits that two years after institution of the suit the proposed amendment in the plaint could not have been permitted. 7. Ghousia Begum” reported in (2017) 5 Andh LD 122 and “P. Poondia Gounder Vs. Ramasamy Udayar and Others” reported in (2006) 1 LW 819 and reiterating the stand taken by these respondents in their affidavit dated 05.12.2018, submits that two years after institution of the suit the proposed amendment in the plaint could not have been permitted. 7. At the outset, it needs to be indicated that only on the ground of delay amendment in the pleadings cannot be declined though delay may be one of the grounds to reject an application for amendment in the pleadings. The legislative intendment reflected in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC which was incorporated by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 merely indicates that normally amendment in the pleadings shall not be permitted if the matter could have been pleaded by the parties at the initial stage. The fundamental test when an amendment in the pleadings can be permitted has been incorporated under Rule 17 to Order VI CPC itself. It provides that all amendments which are necessary for adjudication of the real dispute involved in the suit shall be permitted and such amendments can be permitted at any stage of the trial. Evidently, delay cannot be the sole ground to reject amendment in the pleadings. In “Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. Vs. Union of India” reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344 , the Supreme Court has observed thus; 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”. 8. The plaintiff has pleaded that by virtue of the registered sale-deed dated 03.11.1973 his grandmother purchased a piece of land and through registered sale-deed dated 16.10.1974 his grandfather has also purchased a piece of land. In paragraph-6 of the plaint, the plaintiff has asserted that these two properties have been purchased by his grandfather and his grandmother from the joint family fund and while so, his grandmother and grandfather had no authority to execute the gift-deeds dated 03.11.1973 and 16.10.1974. In paragraph-6 of the plaint, the plaintiff has asserted that these two properties have been purchased by his grandfather and his grandmother from the joint family fund and while so, his grandmother and grandfather had no authority to execute the gift-deeds dated 03.11.1973 and 16.10.1974. In paragraph-10 of the plaint, the plaintiff has asserted thus; That the plaintiff hereby submits that Ganouri Pandit and Jageshwari Devi have no right to execute a gift in favour of Santi Devi as they were not the absolute owner of the property and the plaintiff is entitled for his share of the suit property and a lawyer's registered notice was also sent by the plaintiff to the defendants but they refused to receive the same and remain unreplied. The plaintiff belongs to Mitakshara School of Hindu law and the suit property was purchased from joint family fund and as such Plaintiff is entitled an inherit to his respective share he can not be thrown out from the property. 9. In view of the plaint averments, by no stretch of imagination it can be conceived that the plaintiff has intended to challenge the validity of the sale-deeds dated 03.11.1973 and 16.10.1974. It was an apparent mistake on the face of the plaint averments which the plaintiff has rightly sought to correct by filing the amendment application dated 15.09.2017. The approach of the trial judge was wholly erroneous. The impugned order dated 07.03.2018 reflects complete non-application of mind by the trial judge. The trial judge has completely misunderstood the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. 10. Viewed thus and for the aforesaid reasons, finding serious infirmity in the impugned order dated 07.03.2018 it is set-aside. The writ petition is allowed and the amendment in paragraph-14 (iii) of the plaint shall be incorporated.