ORDER : 1. This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 05.02.2019 passed in T.S. No.74 of 2008 by which the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 dated 18.12.2018 has been rejected is under challenge. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed T.S. No.74 of 2008 for declaration of right, title over the landed property in question, in which his title is on the basis of registered sale deed dated 27.01.1954 which has been said to be purchased by the mother of the plaintiff. The respondents/defendants have appeared and filed the written statement wherein they have claimed their title on the basis of a registered sale deed executed in their favour by the mother dated 23.09.1988 and since then they are in the possession of the land and also making payment of rent to the State of Bihar and thereafter petition under Order VI Rule 17 has been filed for seeking amendment to the effect: “Proposed Amendment (i) That after para 10 a sub para 10 a be added as follows:- “That the defendant claim the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 23.09.1988 said to have been executed by Bibi Tahira mother of the plaintiff in favour of Md. Khalil. The plaintiff begs to submit the Bibi Tahira has not executed any sale deed in favour of Md. Khalil with respect to the suit land nor Md. Khalil ever came in possession over the suit land even for a moment. The sale deed dated 23.09.88 Deed no.11808 said to have been executed by Bibi Tahira is a fake and forged sale deed which has never been executed by Bibi Tahira and is fit to be declared null and void and not binding of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had no knowledge of the sale deed dated 23.09.88 as Md. Khalil kept it in top secret and the plaintiff for the first time after filing of the suit came to know about the same in the year 2018 when affidavit of the plaintiff this fact came to know after perusal of W.S of the defendant. (ii) That in relief portion after relief no.B a new relief “B B” added as follows- “That the sale deed of Md. (ii) That in relief portion after relief no.B a new relief “B B” added as follows- “That the sale deed of Md. Khalil dated 23.09.88 vide deed no.11808 said to have been executed by Bibi Tahira in favour of Md. Khalil be declare null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. Further it be declared that the sale deed of the deft. Dated 20.02.2008 vide deed no.1075 be also declared null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.” The trial court having rejected the same vide order dated 05.02.2019, this writ petition has been filed invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Mr. B.V. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial court has rejected the aforesaid petition mainly on the ground that on such a belated stage the amendment cannot be but according to him amendment can be allowed at any stage of the suit, therefore, the order passed is improper and illegal and is not sustainable in the eye of law and is accordingly fit to be set aside. 4. This Court after having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after going across the pleading made in the writ petition, before dealing with the legality and propriety of the order impugned, it would be appropriate to refer Order VI Rule 17, which reads as under: “17.Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such " terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” It is evident from the provisions as contained under Order VI Rule 17 CPC that conditions for allowing the amendment is (1) when the nature of the Suit is not changed, (2) without the amendment would result in introducing new cause of action and intends to prejudice other party (3) when the law of limitation, if fresh suit, an amendment in plaint would be defeated, barred that as a general rule it would be rejected but to avoid multiciplicity it can be allowed, reference in this regard may be made to judgment rendered in the case of Rajkumar Gurawara vs. S.K. Sarwagi and Company Private Limited and Anr., reported in (2008) 14 SCC 364 , in the case of Revajeetu Builder and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Ors., reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 . 5. The scope of allowing the amendment under the aforesaid provision has been changed after the amendment brought in the Code of Civil Procedure w.e.f. 01.07.2002 wherein it has been enacted by adding provision namely no application for amendment of the pleading shall be allowed after the trial has been commenced unless the Court comes to conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter, reference in this regard be made judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chander Kanta Bansal Vs. Rajinder Singh Anand reported in (2008) 5 SCC 117 , in the case of Sumesh Singh Vs. Phoolan Devi & Ors. reported in (2009) 12 SCC 689 and in the case of Abdul Rehman & Anr. Vs. Mohd. Ruldu & Ors. reported in (2012) 11 SCC 341 . 6. It is settled position of law that when amendment introduces a claim on a new cause of action, the amendment shall be effected from the date of amendment and it will relates back to the date of institution of the original suit, this has been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Siddalingamma and Anr. vs. Mamtha Shenoy, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 561 . vs. Mamtha Shenoy, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 561 . It is also settled proposition of law that if any amendment is to be dissolute if afresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered in the case of L.J.Leach and Co. Ltd., & Anr. Vs. Messrs. Jairdine Skinner and Co Respondents. reported in (1957) SCR 438, in the case of T.N. Alloy Foundary Co. Ltd. Vs. T.N. Electricity Board & Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 392 , Ashutosh Chaturvedi Vs. Prano Devi Alias Parani Devi & Ors. reported in (2008) 15 SCC 610 , and in the case of Ravajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons & Ors. reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 . 7. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the factual aspect has been appreciated by this Court, wherefrom it is evident that the petitioner/plaintiff is claiming title on the basis of registered sale deed dated 27.01.1954 and save and except the said averment, no other averment has been taken in the plaint. The trial court has summoned the defendants who on their appearance have filed written statement, wherein they have taken the stand that they are enjoying the landed property in question by way of registered sale deed by the mother of the plaintiff in favour of the defendant dated 23.09.1988 and since then they are residing in the premises without any hindrance making payment of rent to the State of Bihar. It is only thereafter petition under Order VI Rule 17 has been filed for incorporating the amendment to the effect to declare the suit of Mohammad Khalil as null and void. The trial court has rejected the same by holding therein that the amendment petition has been filed after belated stage. It is only thereafter petition under Order VI Rule 17 has been filed for incorporating the amendment to the effect to declare the suit of Mohammad Khalil as null and void. The trial court has rejected the same by holding therein that the amendment petition has been filed after belated stage. This Court after appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is of the view that the ground as has been stipulated by the trial court while rejecting the petition under Order VI Rule 17 to the effect that the petition has been filed at belated stage is having substance, but if the trial court has only given one reason of not entertaining the petition under Order VI Rule 17, it does not mean that the Court of 227 sitting as revisable jurisdiction cannot improve this matter if the reason has not been assigned in the impugned order by the trial court. 8. This Court, therefore, in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India even though the reason of belated application in rejection of the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 said to be valid one on this ground itself rather the trial court ought to have considered the other legal aspect i.e. the question of limitation and the part of due diligence and therefore this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is proceeding to modify the order on these legal issues. The question of limitation would be considered and if the original suit cannot be filed if barred by limitation, the same relief cannot be allowed to be incorporated by way of amendment if it will hit the limitation since if the amendment will be allowed it will relate back to the date of filing of the suit and hence if the amendment would be allowed wherein the deed be executed on 23.09.1988 has been sought to be assailed in a suit of the year 2008, therefore, after lapse of 23 years the suit would be said to have instituted against the deed dated 23.09.1988. This aspect of the matter ought to have been taken by the trial court. This aspect of the matter ought to have been taken by the trial court. The defendant has appeared and the issues have also been framed, therefore, in view of the mandatory condition of showing due diligence on the part of the parties that what prevented the party to make an application for amendment by filing a petition under Order VI Rule 17, the Court has to see that the part of due diligence that what prevented the party to file amendment, meaning thereby amendment can be allowed at any stage and subject to the condition that the party are supposed to show the reason why the amendment petition could not have been filed by invoking petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC but this aspect of the matter has also not been dealt with by the trial court. 9. This Court after dealing with the legal proposition is of the view that the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 as has been rejected by the trial court needs no interference by supplementing the reasons as discussed above. 10. In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned and is accordingly, dismissed.