JUDGMENT : 1. Registry has reported that service of notice upon all the respondents is complete. 2. Mr. Naresh Prasad Thakur, the learned counsel appears for the respondent nos.1 to 24, 26 to 28, 30 and 35 to 39. 3. Aggrieved of order dated 03.09.2014 passed in Title Suit No.109 of 2013 by which an application for amendment in the plaint for incorporating an additional paragraph vide paragraph no. 31(A) has been declined, the plaintiff has approached this Court. 4. Title Suit No.109 of 2013 was instituted for a decree of declaration of the plaintiff's right, title, interest and possession along with the proforma defendants over the suit scheduled land and for a declaration that the defendants 1st set, 2nd set and 3rd set and their predecessors have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. Sale deeds dated 25.07.2007, 22.08.2007, 28.08.2007, 03.12.2007, 12.09,2007 and 08.04.2009 have also been challenged as void, fraudulent, illegal and collusive. In the pending suit an application for amendment in the plaint was filed on 17.04.2014. This application was opposed by the defendants on the ground that it would change the nature and character of the suit and the plaintiff cannot be permitted to raise inconsistent plea through amendment. The amendment application was dismissed on the ground that sufficient foundation for amendment in the plaint has not been laid by the plaintiff. 5. Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C provides that amendment in the pleadings shall not be permitted if the trial in the suit has commenced. This provision has been held mandatory by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. It is an admitted position that application for amendment dated 17.04.2014 was filed by the plaintiff at the initial stage. By the amendment application dated 17.04.2014 the plaintiff intends to incorporate paragraph no. This provision has been held mandatory by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. It is an admitted position that application for amendment dated 17.04.2014 was filed by the plaintiff at the initial stage. By the amendment application dated 17.04.2014 the plaintiff intends to incorporate paragraph no. 31(A) in the plaint which reads as under: “Para-31(A): That Janki Mochi, Tanu Hari and their successors including defendant no.1 to 28 are undisputedly the members of schedule caste and as such all transfers of land in suit plot no.498 purportedly made by them (even if it is assumed that they had/have any title or interest in the suit land i.e. land in C.S. Plot No.498) by means of six sale deeds in favour of defendant no.29 to 35 having been made in contravention of Section 46 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (i.e. all transfers being made without the permission of Dy. Commissioner and to those, except defendant no.33, who are not members of schedule tribe) are ab initio void and hence all those six sale deeds referred to in para-21 and other paragraphs including para-38(b) of the plaint are ab initio void not only because the vendors had no title but also because of the fact that those sale deeds have been executed in contravention of mandatory provision contained in Section 46 of the CNT Act.” 6. Whether Janki Mochi, Tanu Hari and their successors-defendant nos. 1 to 28 belong to scheduled caste or not is a question of fact which can be ascertained during the trial of Title Suit No.109 of 2013. The plea raised by the plaintiff is that the sale deeds executed in favour of defendant nos. 29 to 35 are in contravention of Section 46 of C.N.T Act, 1908. In paragraph no.31 of the plaint the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the sale deeds are void, collusive, fraudulent and paper transaction which would not confer any right, title or interest upon the defendants 4th set. Addition of a fact which would be a fact by virtue of birth of a person, which may not be known to the plaintiff, if found true, may attract the provisions of C.N.T Act, 1908. The learned trial judge in its order dated 03.09.2014 has declined amendment in the plaint observing that this is a question of law which is not required to be pleaded in the plaint. The learned trial judge in its order dated 03.09.2014 has declined amendment in the plaint observing that this is a question of law which is not required to be pleaded in the plaint. I find that the approach of the learned trial judge was completely erroneous. Law can be applied only on facts and if the plaintiff is not permitted to plead its case on caste of the defendant nos. 1 to 28, he would not be able to raise a plea founded on the provisions under C.N.T Act, 1908. 7. Finding serious infirmity in the impugned order dated 03.09.2014, it is set aside. The paragraph no. 31(A) shall be incorporated in the plaint. The defendants are granted opportunity to file additional written statement, however, confined to paragraph no.31(A) of the plaint. Needless to indicate that the parties shall be permitted to lead evidence on this issue. 8. The writ petition stands allowed.