JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 1429 of 2018 has been filed for deletion of respondent no.8-Jitan Devi who died on 24.07.2016. For the reasons stated in this application, I.A. No.1429 of 2018 is allowed. Let necessary correction be done during course of the day. W.P.(C) No.3855 of 2012 By filing an application for amendment vide I.A. No.2630 of 2012 order dated 16.01.2009 passed in Partition Suit No.241 of 2004 has been challenged. This application was allowed by an order dated 07.09.2012. Now orders under challenge are orders dated 16.01.2009 and dated 22.05.2012. 2. The petitioners are plaintiffs in Partition Suit No.241 of 2004. The suit was instituted for a preliminary decree of partition to the extent of their half share in Schedule 'D' lands which the plaintiffs claimed are joint suit properties. Partition suit was instituted by six persons, however, one of the plaintiffs namely, Masomat Mungo Devi died on 26.06.2009 and accordingly her name was deleted by order dated 09.10.2009. 3. The plaintiffs are aggrieved of dismissal of the applications for amendment in the plaint. 4. At the outset it is pertinent to indicate that after dismissal of the application for amendment dated 29.02.2008, another application for a similar amendment in the plaint was not maintainable. 5. In his application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C the plaintiffs have pleaded that the suit schedule properties were all situated in village-Gari which were acquired in the year 1939, however, subsequently it came to their knowledge that some properties in village-Hesal were also purchased in the year 1942. When they came to know about the same they obtained certified copy of the sale deed which was delivered to them on 05.12.2007 and thus they could know acquisition of 0.53 acres of lands in the name of both the brothers jointly. What may be said a typographical error, interestingly in paragraph-7 of the said amendment application the plaintiffs have pleaded that the said property is situated in village-Gari. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in “Andhra Bank Vrs. ABN Amro Bank N.V.” reported in AIR 2007 SC 2511 . 7. Amendment in the pleadings can be allowed at any stage, even at the stage of final hearing of the suit. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in “Andhra Bank Vrs. ABN Amro Bank N.V.” reported in AIR 2007 SC 2511 . 7. Amendment in the pleadings can be allowed at any stage, even at the stage of final hearing of the suit. It is well-settled that if proposed amendment is necessary for deciding the real issue involved in the suit, normally amendment in the pleadings should be allowed, however, the powers conferred upon the courts under order VI Rule 17 C.P.C is restricted under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. It provides that amendment in the pleadings shall not be allowed after trial in the suit has commenced. It is not in dispute that after examining eight witnesses the plaintiff filed the first application for amendment on 29.02.2008. This application was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs did not claim that they along with the defendants were in the joint possession over 0.53 acres of lands in village-Hesal. After dismissal of this application, the plaintiffs filed another application on 04.03.2009 asserting that the said property is in their joint possession. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners that exclusion of the said property from the suit scheduled properties would lead to multiplicity of litigation, in the facts of the case, is not a ground to allow amendment in the plaint. All along in the plaint and application for amendment in Schedule 'D', the plaintiffs claimed that they were in possession of the properties which were purchased by them and while so, they cannot plead that they were unaware of some of the properties which were purchased from the joint family fund. Merely because an application for amendment can be allowed at any stage in the suit, the statutory restriction under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C, which has been held mandatory by the Supreme Court, cannot be ignored. 8. In view of the above discussions, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders dated 16.01.2009 and 22.05.2012, and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.