JUDGMENT : When, after the remand by the High Court with a direction to the trial judge to pass a fresh order in respect of amendment in paragraph no.37 and in the prayer clause, the application seeking the aforesaid amendments was rejected vide order dated 02.08.2012 in Title Suit No.04 of 1997, the plaintiff has approached this Court. 2. Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C confers powers upon the courts to permit amendment in the pleadings. The provision under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C is founded on justice, equity and good conscience and that is the reason amendment in the pleadings is construed liberally. 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 Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. It provides that after trial in the suit has commenced amendment in the pleadings shall not be allowed. The statutory restriction contained in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C has been held mandatory. However, by now it is well-settled that if amendment in the pleadings would not cause prejudice to other party and the amendment sought to be incorporated is for the reason that the matter could not have been pleaded inspite of due diligence and it is not on account of fault on the part of the party, it may be allowed provided it does not change the nature of the suit and it is necessary to decide the real issue in the suit [Refer, “North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur Vrs. Bhagwan Das” reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 ]. 3. Plea taken by the plaintiff is that if amendments as per paragraph nos. IX and X of the amendment application dated 06.05.2009 are permitted in the plaint, neither the nature of the suit would change nor it would cause any prejudice to the defendants. 4. When the application dated 06.05.2009 by which the plaintiff sought as many as 11 amendments in the plaint was partly allowed by an order dated 11.05.2009, he came to this Court in W.P.(C) No.2554 of 2009. Plea taken by the plaintiff in the application for amendment is that, inadvertence and typographical errors in the plaint have necessitated filing of the amendment application. Plea taken by the plaintiff in the application for amendment is that, inadvertence and typographical errors in the plaint have necessitated filing of the amendment application. The trial judge by its order dated 11.05.2009 permitted amendment as sought in paragraph nos.1 and 8, which apparently appear to be typographical errors. It is not in dispute that after the defendant nos. 1, 2, 4 and 11 concluded their arguments in the suit, the amendment application dated 06.05.2009 was filed. No explanation has been offered by the plaintiff for seeking amendment at such a belated stage. The plaint averments would disclose that the plaintiff has claimed half share in Schedule 'A' properties; half share belongs to defendant no.5 and it is the case pleaded by the plaintiff that he has satisfied the decree in Certificate Case No. 23 of 1980-81. The auction sale has been challenged on the ground of breach of certain mandatory provisions under Public Demand Recovery Act. The plaintiff has pleaded thus: 21. That, before drawing up the sale proclamation neither notice was sent to the plaintiff as required under sub-rule 3 of rule 25 of Schedule-II of the Public Demands Recovery Act, nor copy of the sale proclamation was sent to the plaintiff by registered post or otherwise nor the sale proclamation was affixed on the conspicuous part of the property to be auctioned as required under rule 26 (i) of Schedule-II of the P.D.R rules. 22. That, by bringing the court-peon in their collusion the defendants no.1 to 4, suppressed the sale proclamation and got an entirely false and collusive service report submitted on 26.02.92, the very date of auction sale and without observing the mandatory provisions of law, envisaged in the P.D.R Act. 30. That, when the plaintiff came to know of the fraudulent auction sale, he made an application under section 29 of the Act and the successor certificate officer by his order dated 31.3.92, set aside the auction sale by observing that the mandatory provision of auction sale as provided in the P.D.R. Act was not followed, but in appeal taken by the Bank defendant nos. 1 to 3, the order dated 31.3.92, was set aside and the auction sale of the house affirmed by Deputy commissioner, Giridih by order dated 12.4.93, though the appeal was illegal, not maintainable and entertainable as one appeal was preferred for all the four cases Certificate Case No.63/85-86,Certificate Case No.104/87-88, Certificate Case No.324/87-88 and Certificate Case No.23/80-87. 31. That the plaintiffs revision application against that order before the Commissioner and a writ application in the High Court for having the fraudulent sale set aside did not succeed. 37. That, it is submitted that the unauthorised and unwarranted jumbling-up of Certificate Case No.23/80-81 with the other three certificate cases and the fraudulent and collusive concealment of the proceedings recorded in Certificate Case No.104 of 1987-88 and the rather deliberate infraction of the rule 25,26, 27 and 44 of Schedule-II of the Act in publishing and conducting the sale vitiated the entire proceeding and rendered the auction sale at least of the plaintiff's half share of the house, wholly void, illegal and without jurisdiction and against the natural justice which necessitated institution of this suit and the defendant no.4 may be restrained permanently to transfer the suit house or change the structure of the house in suit and defendant no.4 may be restrained by temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit otherwise, the plaintiff would be put in irreparable loss which can not be compensated in terms of money. 40. That, the suit is valued at Rs.90,250/-is being the value of the plaintiff's half share of the house, and permanent injunction is valued at Rs.50/-and temporary injunction is Rs.50/-and the suit is valued at Rs.90,350/-and the plaintiff has prayed for exemption of paying ad valorem court fee thereon in Legal Aid Committee. 41. That the plaintiff prays for the following RELIEFS: (a) On adjudication it be declared that the auction sale of the plaintiff's half share in the house fully described in Schedule 'B' is void and not binding on the plaintiff, a decree declaring his title in the same be passed. 5. Amendment nos. 41. That the plaintiff prays for the following RELIEFS: (a) On adjudication it be declared that the auction sale of the plaintiff's half share in the house fully described in Schedule 'B' is void and not binding on the plaintiff, a decree declaring his title in the same be passed. 5. Amendment nos. (ix) and (x) in the application dated 06.05.2009 which have been declined by the trial judge read as under: (ix) That in para 37 of the plaint in the 10th line, the words, “at least of the plaintiff's half share of the house” may be deleted and in their place “of Schedule 'A' property and house” may be added. (x) That in para 40 of the plaint in 40 (a) in the 2nd line, the words, “the Plaintiff's half share in the house fully described in Schedule 'B' ” may be deleted and in their place “of the house and lands of Schedule 'A' of the Plaint” may be added and in the 4th line after the word, “Plaintiff”, the words “and defendant nos. 6 to 10” may be added and thereafter the words, “a decree declaring his title in the same be passed” may be deleted. 6. Half share of the plaintiff is described under Schedule 'B' and the entire property under the different certificate cases is described under Schedule 'A'. The application for amendment was filed when final argument in the suit had commenced. Normally amendment in the pleadings is not declined on the ground of delay, but delay is not a relevant factor cannot be contended. Specific case pleaded by defendant no.2 in its counter-affidavit is, that when a plea was raised that by claiming half share in the property auction sale cannot be challenged for it would amount to challenging auction sale partly, the application for amendment dated 06.05.2009 was filed. Stand taken by the defendant no.2 in the present proceeding has not been controverted by the petitioner. Besides no explanation for delay in filing the amendment application and the limitation on the powers of the court to permit amendment in the pleadings, in my opinion if the amendments sought to be incorporated are allowed, it would amount to re-writing the plaint. It would amount to incorporating an altogether new plea by withdrawing the plea on which trial in the suit has proceeded. It would amount to incorporating an altogether new plea by withdrawing the plea on which trial in the suit has proceeded. The trial judge has rightly observed that if amendments at paragraph nos. IX and X in application dated 06.05.2009 are allowed, a de novo trial shall commence and it would amount to changing the nature of the suit. 7. In the above facts, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 02.08.2012, the writ petition is dismissed.