JUDGMENT : Aggrieved of order dated 15.02.2011 passed in Title Suit No.08 of 2007 by which the applications for adducing additional documents and amendment in the plaint have been rejected, the plaintiffs have approached this Court. 2. Title Suit No.08 of 2007 was instituted by Mahabir Gope, Kaliyug Gupe and Sheo Charan Gope @ Galu Gope; all sons of late Deepan Ahir @ Deepan Gope claiming a decree for declaration of their title over schedule 'A' lands and for confirmation of their possession. Orders passed by the defendant no.4 in Doubtful Demand Case No.7/98-99 and in Settlement Case No.133/95-96 have also been challenged by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have claimed that the lands comprised in Khata Nos.186/170 and Khata No.2, area about 5.26 acres were recorded in Survey Khatiyan as Gairmajurwa Khas in the last cadestral survey and settlement; this forms schedule 'A' property. The land was initially waste land which father of the plaintiffs reclaimed and made cultivable. Subsequently, the ex-landlord through a Hukumnama executed in Sambat 1991 gave schedule 'A' lands to the father of the plaintiffs on salami of Rs.24/-and jamabandi rent-receipts were issued by the ex-landlord. The plaintiffs have further claimed that name of their father was entered in Register-II after recognizing him as settlee/raiyat and Anchal Revenue Karamchari issued rent receipts in the name of their father. After their father-Deepan Ahir died in the year 1971 the plaintiffs are cultivating peacefully over schedule 'A' lands and they also started growing crops. In paragraph no.10 of the plaint they have claimed that they have also paid rent for schedule 'A' lands. The defendant nos. 5,6 and 7 filed a common written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of the Hukumnana and issuance of rent receipts. In paragraph no.16 of their plaint the plaintiffs have pleaded that in the year 1981-82 the department of soil conservation constructed a 'Bandh” over the suit land as reservoir from where they are irrigating their land and rearing fish. Claiming that the plaintiffs had full knowledge of the doubtful demand case and other settlement cases, the defendants have pleaded that the plaintiffs never constructed a pond nor are in possession of the suit lands. In the pending suit when the suit was posted for arguments, three applications; one for producing additional documents, one for impounding the Hukumnama and another for amendment in the plaint, were filed. In the pending suit when the suit was posted for arguments, three applications; one for producing additional documents, one for impounding the Hukumnama and another for amendment in the plaint, were filed. By the impugned order dated 15.02.2011 the learned trial court has allowed the application for impounding of Hukumnama, however, dismissed the applications for adducing additional evidence and amendment in the plaint. 3. At the outset it needs to be indicated that by the application for amendment in the plaint the plaintiffs have sought permission to correct the typographical error by replacing the numeric Rs.25/-to Rs. 24/-. Plea taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners is mistake in reading the kaithi language. 4. Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C confers wide powers on the courts to permit amendment in the pleadings, and by now it is well-settled that amendment in the pleadings can be permitted at any stage, even at the stage of final hearing. However, under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C a statutory limitation has been provided on the powers of the court to permit amendment in the pleadings. Normally, amendment in the plaint is not permitted once the trial in the suit has commenced. The statutory limitation under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C has been held mandatory, but by judicial decisions exceptions to this limitation have been carved out. It has been held that if the amendment is necessary for deciding the real issue involved in the suit and denial of permission for amendment would cause injustice to the party, amendment in the pleadings shall be allowed. 5. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have specifically averred issuance of rent receipt to their father and after his death to them. In the application dated 09.02.2011 the plaintiffs have pleaded that the Zamindari rent receipts were obtained by them from the record of Misc. Case No.07/98-99 and thereafter application for producing rent receipts was filed. They have also pleaded that these rent receipts are more than 30 years old. In view of pleadings of the parties; plaintiffs have asserted issuance of the rent receipts whereas the defendant nos. Case No.07/98-99 and thereafter application for producing rent receipts was filed. They have also pleaded that these rent receipts are more than 30 years old. In view of pleadings of the parties; plaintiffs have asserted issuance of the rent receipts whereas the defendant nos. 5 to 10 have denied issuance of rent receipts to the plaintiffs or their father in respect of schedule 'A' lands, the rent receipts which the plaintiffs intend to produce in evidence become an important piece of evidence which would assist the court in deciding the real controversy involved in the suit. 6. In the above facts, rejection of applications dated 09.02.2011 for producing the rent receipts and for correcting the clerical mistake in paragraph no.5 of the plaint is found unsustainable. The trial judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. Rejection of these applications would certainly cause injustice to the plaintiffs. 7. In the result, impugned order dated 15.02.2011 relating to these two applications is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. The trial court shall proceed in the matter expeditiously, in accordance with law.