JUDGMENT Pankaj Bhandari, J. - The matter comes up on an application for vacation of stay order but this Court deems it proper to decide the Revision Petition itself. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that initially plaintiff-respondent filed a suit claiming Rs.11,43,431/-. The suit was filed on 12.08.2011. Plaintiff-respondent moved an application under order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 26.04.2017 claiming therein that Rs.11,43,431/- be substituted by Rs.12,36,137/-. It was mentioned in the application that bonafide figure of Rs.11,43,431/- was mentioned, whereas the amount due was to the tune of Rs.12,36,137. The Court below allowed the application, however, in the impugned order, the Court below mentioned that the amount of Rs.12,36,137/- be substituted by Rs.11,43,431/-, however, the prayer was to the contrary. 3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that after filing of the plaint, written statement was filed, issues were framed and the matter was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff. At that time, after a delay of more than six years, a prayer was made to amend the plaint. It is contended that the amendment will result in entertaining the claim which is barred by limitation. 4. Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has opposed the Revision Petition. His contention is that it was only a typographical error which was sought to be amended. No prejudice be caused to the defendant. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, Court is empowered to allow the amendment of pleadings for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. However, as per the proviso, application for amendment should not be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, party should not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 7. In the present case in hand, the plaintiff filed the suit on 30.05.2011. Defendant submitted his written statement, Court framed issues and the matter was fixed for evidence, trial had thus commenced. The amendment sought for would tend to entertain the claim which is barred by limitation, hence the Court below has committed grave error in allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. 9. Application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC stands dismissed. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. 9. Application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC stands dismissed. Stay application also stands disposed.