JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Instant petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, lays challenge to order dated 27.6.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Misc. Application No. 125-6 of 2019 in Civil Suit No. 159-1 of 13, whereby an application under Order VI, rule 17 CPC, having been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter, 'plaintiff') came to be dismissed, with a prayer to set aside the impugned order consequently allowing the application under Order VI, rule 17 CPC. 2. Case was listed on 14.10.2019, but since none came present on behalf of the private respondents No.1 to 4-defendants (hereinafter, 'defendants'), this Court adjourned the matter for today. Even today, despite repeated pass-overs, none has come present on behalf of the defendants No.1 to 4, as such, they are ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. It appears that the defendants No.1 to 4 are not interested in contesting the present petition. 3. For having a bird's eye view, certain undisputed facts as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the he is owner-in-possession of the land denoted by Khata/Khatauni No. 81 min/96 min, Khasra No. 405/374/147, situate in Village Bhajwani, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter, 'suit land') and order dated 21.4.2019 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur and mutation dated 15.6.2009 sanctioned by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh are wrong, illegal, and void. Record reveals that after closure of plaintiff's evidence, he filed an application under Order VI, rule 17 CPC(Annexure P-5), seeking amendment of plaint. Plaintiff averred in the application that due to inadvertence and clerical mistake, word "plaintiff" has been wrongly mentioned in place of "defendant" in para-13 of the plaint, as such, he be permitted to replace the word "plaintiff" by word "defendant" in para-13 of the plaint. Besides this, plaintiff also sought amendment by inserting lines i.e. "Late sh. Sohnu ram S/o Sh. Jiunu Ram predecessor in the interest of the defendant no. 1(i) to (iv) was dismissed. In that suit the Ld. Civil Judge Ghumarwin had discussed about the document Sajra Kishtbar in the order and judgment dated 22-04- 2004 in the above mentioned case no. 94/1 of 1999 and the said Sajra Kishtbar was Exhibited in that case as Ex. Jiunu Ram predecessor in the interest of the defendant no. 1(i) to (iv) was dismissed. In that suit the Ld. Civil Judge Ghumarwin had discussed about the document Sajra Kishtbar in the order and judgment dated 22-04- 2004 in the above mentioned case no. 94/1 of 1999 and the said Sajra Kishtbar was Exhibited in that case as Ex. DW-2/A. Thereafter the above mentioned matter was also dismissed by the first appellant court" after the words, "suit of" in second line of para-13, which now learned counsel for the plaintiff does not press. 4. Aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the plaintiff came to be opposed by the defendants, who alleged that the amendment as prayed for in the application cannot be allowed at the belated stage, because same is not necessary rather, application for amendment has been filed for delaying the proceedings. 5. Learned Court below vide impugned order dated 27.6.2019, dismissed the application on the ground that the plaintiff has nowhere pleaded that despite due diligence amendment sought, could not be made before commencement of trial. Learned Court below further arrived at a conclusion that perusal of averments made in the application itself shows that amendment could have been sought before commencement of trial. In the aforesaid background, plaintiff has approached this court in the instant proceedings. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, vis-a-vis reasoning assigned by learned Court below in the impugned order, this Court finds that, admittedly, it has not been specially averred in the application that despite due diligence by the plaintiff, amendment now sought could not be sought earlier but, in para-5 of the application, it has been specially averred that amendment is very much necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter, and in case amendment as sought, is allowed, same will not change the nature of the suit. 7. 7. True it is that under amended provisions of Order VI, rule 17 CPC, no amendment can be allowed after commencement of trial, especially if same is not based upon subsequent circumstances or if the same could not be raised despite due diligence before commencement of trial, but, having taken note of the nature of the amendment sought to be made, this Court is convinced and satisfied that amendment sought in para-2 of the application is essential for just and proper adjudication of the controversy and if such amendment is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants, rather, it would help learned Court below to adjudicate the controversy in an effective manner. 8. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Union of India and another, (2011) 12 SCC 268 have held that where an application is filed after the commencement of the trial, it must be shown that despite due diligence, said amendment could not have been sought earlier. Their lordships have held as under: "7. The above provision deals with amendment of pleadings. By Amendment Act 46 of 1999, this provision was deleted. It has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being 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. The proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Now, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it must be shown that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The purpose and object of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, but the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper-technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly, in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. Normally, amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations." 9. Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, but the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper-technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly, in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. Normally, amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations." 9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Chakreshwari Construction Private Limited vs. Manohar Lal, (2017) 5 SCC 212 , has culled out certain principles while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment, which are as under:- "13. The principle applicable for deciding the application made for amendment in the pleadings remains no more res integra and is laid down in several cases. In Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy & Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84 , this Court, after examining the entire previous case law on the subject, culled out the following principle in para 63 of the judgment which reads as under: (SCC p.102) "63. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money. (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation. (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive." 10. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that while allowing/rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint, it is to be seen whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case. In the case at hand, refusing the amendment, would in fact lead to injustice and multiplicity of litigation. 11. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that while allowing/rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint, it is to be seen whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case. In the case at hand, refusing the amendment, would in fact lead to injustice and multiplicity of litigation. 11. Careful perusal of para-13 of the plaint (Annexure P-1) though suggests that plaintiff has averred, "That the plaintiff has already filed a Permanent Prohibitory Injunction before Ld. Civil Jude (Jr. Div) Ghumarwin, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed." If aforesaid averment is read in conjunction with the averments contained in para-14 of the plaint, amendment as sought in para-2 of the application appears to be necessary. Moreover, defendants in their written statement have not specifically denied the averments contained in paras No. 13 and 14 of the plaint, rather, it has been stated by the defendants that averments contained in paras Nos. 13 and 14 of the plaint are matter of record, which need to be proved accordingly, meaning thereby there is no specific denial, if any, to the factum of judgment having been rendered by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ghumarwin in the suit, which was filed by defendants. Inadvertently, in para-13 of the plaint, plaintiff has used word "plaintiff' instead of "defendant". Had the suit of plaintiff been dismissed, as has been stated in para-13 of the plaint, there was no occasion for the defendant to file Regular Second Appeal No. 137 of 2006 against the plaintiff. Moreover, defendants have not specifically denied the factum with regard to filing of the suit by the defendants, while filing reply to para-2 of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI, rule 17 CPC. 12. Otherwise also, factum with regard to filing of earlier suit by the defendant, if any, would be proved by the plaintiff by placing on record certified copy of judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court or thereafter, judgment, if any, passed upon the appeals. 13. 12. Otherwise also, factum with regard to filing of earlier suit by the defendant, if any, would be proved by the plaintiff by placing on record certified copy of judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court or thereafter, judgment, if any, passed upon the appeals. 13. Needless to say, application for amendment of plaint, though has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff but same must have been drafted by a counsel, as such, omission, if any, on the part of the counsel, to use the words, "despite due diligence", could not have been made basis by learned Court below, while rejecting prayer for amendment of plaint made on behalf of the plaintiff. As has been noticed herein above, amendment as prayed in para-2 of the application, if allowed would not in any manner change the nature of the suit, as such, no prejudice whatsoever, would be caused to the defendants in case same is allowed. 14. Consequently, in view of above, present petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by learned Court below is set aside. Amendment sought by plaintiff to the extent of substituting the word plaintiff" by word "defendant" in para-13 of the plaint, as prayed for in para-2 of the application (Annexure P5), is allowed. 15. Parties undertake to appear before learned Court below on 21.10.2019, enabling it to proceed further with the proceedings. 16. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, alongwith all pending applications.