JUDGMENT : Photocopy of the plaint is tendered in the Court. 2. Taken on record. 3. The petitioner, defendant no.2 in Partition Suit No.135 of 2005, is aggrieved of order dated 02.06.2017 passed in Partition Suit No.135 of 2005 by which the application for amendment in the plaint has been allowed. 4. Partition Suit No.135 of 2005 was instituted by Jaibun Nisha seeking a preliminary decree of partition to the extent of 20 paise share in the Schedule-A property and for a final decree for her share after putting her in khas possession over the same. The suit was contested by the defendants including the petitioner. In the pending suit an application for amendment in the plaint was filed on 17.07.2012 which was dismissed as not pressed by an order dated 04.12.2012. A second application for amendment was filed by the plaintiff on 12.01.2016 for amendment in the genealogical table and amendment in prayer clause (a) for substituting the expression ‘50 paise’ share in place of ‘20 paise’ share which according to the plaintiff was a typographical mistake. This application has been allowed by the trial Judge on the ground that in order dated 04.12.2012 a liberty was granted to the petitioner to move an application for amendment for the same, if needed. Aggrieved, the defendant no.2 has approached this Court. 5. By an order dated 01.12.2017 operation of the impugned order dated 02.06.2017 was stayed by this Court. 6. Mr. Ishteyaque Ahmed, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that under the customary law the plaintiff is entitled for 50% share in the properties of her father and while so, claim for 20 paise share in Schedule-A property was apparently a typographical error. 7. Amendment in the pleadings can be permitted at any stage of the trial, even at the stage of final hearing. Powers under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to permit amendment in the pleadings is however restricted under the proviso to Rule 17. This proviso has been held mandatory by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. It provides that normally amendment in the pleadings shall not be permitted once trial in the suit has commenced. However, by now it is well-settled that if the proposed amendment is necessary for deciding the real issue in the suit, it shall be permitted. This proviso has been held mandatory by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. It provides that normally amendment in the pleadings shall not be permitted once trial in the suit has commenced. However, by now it is well-settled that if the proposed amendment is necessary for deciding the real issue in the suit, it shall be permitted. The contention that according to customary law the plaintiff is entitled for half share in Schedule-A property is a contention which requires pleadings in the plaint. There is no such pleading by the plaintiff, not even in the application for amendment. Once the plaintiff has specifically pleaded in the plaint as well as in her evidence as P.W.1 filed in Partition Suit No.135 of 2005 that she is entitled for 20 paise share, it cannot be contended that the evidence of the plaintiff in the court is also on account of a typographical error. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that the plaintiff is an illiterate lady. Be that as it may, the plaintiff who has come to the court with a specific case for partition cannot contend that she was not aware of her share in Schedule-A properties, particularly when she filed her evidence as P.W.1 in the court. Plaintiff’s evidence was closed by order dated 04.02.2010 and more than six years thereafter the application for amendment was filed. Merely because in its order dated 04.12.2012 the trial Judge has made an observation that the plaintiff may prefer an application for amendment, it would not confer a jurisdiction upon the trial Judge to exercise a power which is not vested in it. 8. Finding serious infirmity in the impugned order dated 02.06.2017, it is set-aside. The writ petition is allowed.