JUDGMENT : Aggrieved of order dated 07.12.2011 passed in Title Suit No.42 of 1993 the plaintiffs have approached this Court. 2. By an order dated 20.03.2012 further proceeding in Title Suit No.42 of 1993 was stayed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 3. Title Suit No.42 of 1993 was instituted for a decree of declaration that defendant no.3 is not the adopted son of defendant no.4 and for a decree for cancellation of Adoption Deed No.143 of 1993 executed on 16.11.1993 by defendant no.4. In the plaint defendant no.4 has been described as wife of Chigal Rai. In the memo of parties in the plaint the defendant no.4 has been described as claiming herself widow of late Chigal Rai. In the pending suit an application for amendment for correcting the description of defendant no.4 was filed on 24.05.2011. In the amendment application the plaintiffs have pleaded as under: “4. That these plaintiffs have stated their lawyer that the defendant no.4 Rupani Devi was not wife of Chigal Rai son of R.T. Jagu Rai of Jamabandi no.16 rather stated that she was not living in the house of Chigal Rai and also stated that defendant no.4 is the legally married wife of one Rashu Rai of village Chitarpoka Nawadih, P.S. Mohanpur, Dist.-Deoghar and she had two daughters namely Jasoda Devi and Shanti Devi from him and at the fag end of life she became unsound and left the village and taking advantage of her unsoundness the defendant no.1 and 2 by showing her to be the wife of Cihgal Rai, got executed deed of adoption after putting another lady in the name of defendant no.4.” 4. Contending that without knowledge of the plaintiffs who are rustic villagers, the conducting counsel drafted the plaint with incorrect description of defendant no.4, Mr. Ayush Aditya, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that correction in description of the defendant no.4 would not change the nature of the suit and when the daughters of defendant no.4 themselves have deposed in the court that they are not daughters of late Chigal Rai, the amendment in the plaint has been wrongly rejected by the trial judge. 5. Power under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C is founded on justice, equity and good conscience. 5. Power under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C is founded on justice, equity and good conscience. Powers conferred upon the courts under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C are wide and amendment in the pleadings can be permitted at any stage of the trial even at the stage of final hearing, however, this power is restricted under the proviso to Rule 17 C.P.C. It provides that amendment in the pleadings shall not be permitted once trial in the suit has commenced. Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C is mandatory, has been held by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. There is no dispute that this application for amendment was filed after the plaintiffs closed their evidence. Evidence contrary to the pleadings are not legal evidence and while so even if, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the plaintiffs' witnesses have spoken that defendant no.4 was not wife of late Chigal Rai, it would be excluded from consideration. In paragraph no.4 of the amendment application the plaintiffs have not only challenged that defendant no.4 is not legally wedded wife of Chigal Rai they have also claimed that the Adoption Deed dated 16.11.1993 was executed by another lady impersonating herself on defendant no.4. This is an entirely new plea set up by the plaintiffs through amendment in the plaint. The plaintiffs have pleaded that the alleged inaccuracy in the description of defendant no.4 came to their knowledge subsequently, however, they have not disclosed when and how they could know incorrect description of defendant no.4 in the plaint. It was not a mere mistake of the counsel or a typographical error which has crept in the plaint. Evidently, the amendment if allowed would cause serious prejudice to the defendants. Not only that, in the present proceeding except producing a copy of the plaint and the application for amendment other documents have not been produced by the petitioners though this writ petition has been listed for hearing on as many as nine occasions. They have also not made defendant no.4 as party respondent in the present proceeding and by an order dated 20.03.2012 further proceeding in Title Suit No.42 of 1993 was stayed in the absence of defendant no.4. 6. In the above facts challenge to the impugned order dated 07.12.2011 must fail and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.