JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. – Aggrieved of order dated 12.05.2014 passed in Eviction (T) Suit No.21 of 2007 by which amendment in the plaint, in particular, in the schedule of property has been allowed, the defendant has approached this Court. 2. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit which was instituted by the plaintiffGEL Church for his ejection from the suit schedule property. The defendant filed his written statement on 29.11.2007 and after the plaintiff closed its evidence on 29.01.2010 an application for amendment in the plaint was filed. The defendant in his objection to the application for amendment has pleaded that by that time he had already examined two witnesses. 3. Contending that by amendment in the plaint the plaintiff intends to change the schedule of property which cannot be permitted after the plaintiff examined its witnesses, Mr. V. Shivnath, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Judge has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it while allowing the application for amendment in the pleading. 4. Amendment in the pleadings can be permitted at any stage of the trial even at the stage of final hearing, is by now wellsettled. Order VI Rule 17 CPC confers wide powers upon the Courts to permit amendment in the pleadings, however, such power is restricted by proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. If the amendment in the pleadings would not cause prejudice to the other party and the proposed amendment is not on account of lack of due diligence or some default on the part of the party seeking amendment, normally amendment in the pleadings is allowed. The power under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is founded on justice, equity and good conscience and accordingly an application for amendment is required to be construed liberally. At the stage of deciding an application for amendment, the Courts cannot go into the merits of the amendment, except in cases in which the amendment on admitted facts is barred by limitation or any law. The plaintiff in its application for amendment has pleaded that on account of construction raised over the suit schedule property, schedule of land is required to be amended. The amendment sought by the plaintiff is confined to merely five words; "with all construction standing thereupon". The plaintiff in its application for amendment has pleaded that on account of construction raised over the suit schedule property, schedule of land is required to be amended. The amendment sought by the plaintiff is confined to merely five words; "with all construction standing thereupon". The application for amendment was opposed by the defendant on the ground that construction was raised over the land prior to institution of the suit. If that is so, construction over the suit land must form part of the suit schedule property and accordingly, if for nothing else for this reason alone, that is, stand of the defendant, the application for amendment was required to be allowed. 5. Finding no infirmity in the order dated 12.05.2014, the writ petition is dismissed. 6. Needless to say, the defendant shall have an opportunity to file additional written statement, which must remain confined to the amendment which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 12.05.2014. Parties shall also be permitted to lead evidence on that issue.