ORDER : Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J. 1. This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 27.3.2019 passed in IA No. 2 of 2018 in OS No. 147 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, whereby the learned Senior Civil Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking leave of the Court to amend the plaint. 2. Brief over view of the facts leading to lis in this civil revision petition may be stated as follows: The petitioner is the plaintiff in the above suit in OS No. 147 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District. The respondents herein are the defendants in the said suit. 3. Late Hanumanthu Purushotham was an employee of 3rd respondent-Agriculture Market Committee. He died in harness. During his life time, he has taken an L.I.C. policy. The 1st and 2nd respondents are his wife and son respectively. The petitioner herein is his mother. Late Purushotham has shown his wife and son, who are respondents 1 and 2 herein, as his nominees in the said L.I.C. policy and also in his service record. As the petitioner, who is his mother, is also a Class-I legal heir alongwith respondent Nos. 1 and 2, she filed the suit for recovery of her 1/3rd share alongwith respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from the amount payable under the L.I.C. policy consequent to the death of the policyholder and also from the death benefits payable by the 3rd respondent-Agriculture Market Committee. In the said suit she sought for recovery of her share from respondent Nos. 3 to 9, who are the authorities of the Department, where late Hanumanthu Purushotham worked in the L.I.C. She did not claim any relief for recovery of the said amount from respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 4. Therefore, she has filed the present petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking permission of the Court to amend the plaint to enable her to - claim her share from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that she subsequently came to know that the amounts were already paid by respondent Nos. 3 to 9 to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 5. The said petition was resisted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that she subsequently came to know that the amounts were already paid by respondent Nos. 3 to 9 to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 5. The said petition was resisted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have clearly pleaded in their written statement in the year 2013 itself that they have received the entire amount payable by respondent Nos. 3 to 9. So, the petitioner is aware of the fact that the amount is already paid to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the year 2013 itself. She did not take any steps to amend the plaint to claim the relief against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at that time and now in the year 2018, with an inordinate delay, she has filed this petition when the evidence of the defendants' is almost coming to an end. So, there are several laches on the part of the petitioner in seeking the said relief of amendment to plaint 6. After hearing both the parties, the learned Senior Civil Judge has dismissed the said petition by the impugned order. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision petition is preferred by the petitioner assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order. 8. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner; learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 6 and 7. None appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and 8. The petitioner has filed a memo dated 24.7.2019 stating that the 9th respondent is a proforma party and no relief is claimed against it. 9. As regards material facts of the lis, absolutely there is no controversy. Admittedly, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the wife and the son of late Purushotham and the petitioner is the mother of late Purushotham. He was an employee of 3rd respondent-Agriculture Market Committee. He died in harness. He had taken an L.I.C. policy during his life time and he has shown respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are his wife and son, as his nominees. Therefore, after his death, the amount payable under the L.I.C. policy was paid to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are shown as his nominees in the policy. His service benefits are also paid to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are his wife and son, as his nominees. Therefore, after his death, the amount payable under the L.I.C. policy was paid to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are shown as his nominees in the policy. His service benefits are also paid to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are shown as his nominees in his Service Register. These facts are incontrovertible facts. 10. As the petitioner being the mother of late Purushotham, being a Class-I heir, it is her case that she is also entitled to 1/3rd share alongwith respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the service benefits of late Purushotham and also from the amount payable under the L.I.C. policy. As her share was not paid to her, she has filed the present suit for recovery of her share from respondent Nos. 3 to 8, who are the authorities of Agriculture Marketing Committee and the Life Insurance Corporation. 11. After the trial in the suit commenced and when the evidence of defendants' is coming to an end, at that stage, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking permission of the Court to amend the plaint to enable her to claim her 1/3rd share from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that she subsequently came to know that the amounts were paid to them by the other respondents. 12. As already noticed supra, the said petition was vehemently opposed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that they have clearly pleaded in the written statement which was filed long back in the year 2013 that they have received the L.I.C. amount and also the death benefits of late Purushotham from his employer and the L.I.C. Therefore, the petitioner got sufficient knowledge regarding the said fact long back and she did not take any steps to amend the plaint immediately in the year 2013 and now in the year 2018 that she has filed this petition. Therefore, there are severe laches on her part and she is not diligent in seeking the amendment. 13. No doubt respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have pleaded in their written statement, which was filed in the year 2013, that they have received the amounts. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. Therefore, there are severe laches on her part and she is not diligent in seeking the amendment. 13. No doubt respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have pleaded in their written statement, which was filed in the year 2013, that they have received the amounts. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the petitioner ought to have taken steps for amendment of the plaint in the year 2013 itself after knowing the said fact from the pleadings of the written statement. She did not pursue the said remedy at the earliest point of time. After the trial in the suit commenced and when the evidence of defendants' is about to be closed, she has come up with this petition. Therefore, undoubtedly, there are laches on her part. The same cannot be denied as the same is borne out from the record. Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC also imposes a bar stating that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 14. However, despite the laches on the part of the petitioner and despite the bar imposed under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, one fact that weighs with the Court in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff to consider her application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amending the plaint is that according to her, she being the mother of late Purushotham is entitled to 1/3rd share in his death benefits and also in the amount payable under the L.I.C. policy alongwith respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is settled proposition of law that the nominees of an employee shown in his Service Register and also in the L.I.C. policy are only entitled to receive the amount and they have to receive the said amount on behalf of all the share holders, who are legally entitled to a share in the said amount as heirs of the deceased. As respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are shown as nominees in the Service Register and L.I.C. policy, they have received the amount. As respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are shown as nominees in the Service Register and L.I.C. policy, they have received the amount. So, prima facie, it is to be held that there is justification in the contention of the petitioner, being the mother of the deceased employee that she is also entitled to her 1/3rd share in the amount paid to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. If, the present petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is dismissed on the ground of laches and on account of the embargo contained in the proviso under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, she will be left with no legal remedy to recover her 1/3rd share to which she is legally entitled, according to the case pleaded by her. There would be a legal bar on her to file another suit against respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as several technical and legal hurdles may come in her way to pursue the litigation. So, when the facts of the case show that she is prima facie entitled for recovery of her 1/3rd share from respondent Nos. 1 and 2, this Court is of the considered view, that the petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, though belated cannot be rejected on technical grounds. Justice cannot be lost in technicalities. If the petition is dismissed and if she is not allowed to claim the amount, gross injustice would be caused to her and she would be deprived of her legitimate share to which she is legally entitled. When technicalities and gross injustice that may be caused on account of the technical hurdles are pitted against each other, the Court should always lean in favour of rendering substantial justice to the parties to see that substantial rights are not defeated on technical grounds. That is the only fact which weighed in her favour before this Court to consider her petition despite laches on her part. 15. It is settled law that procedure is hand maiden of justice. Therefore, liberal interpretation is to be given to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. While interpreting the bar engrafted under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, it is to be seen that the substantive rights of the parties are not defeated by the said embargo created by procedural law. Interpretation should always be given to sub-serve the ends of justice. While interpreting the bar engrafted under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, it is to be seen that the substantive rights of the parties are not defeated by the said embargo created by procedural law. Interpretation should always be given to sub-serve the ends of justice. So, giving strict interpretation to the bar created by a procedural law would certainly result in travesty of justice. In fit cases, some allowance should always be shown. Discretion always vests with the Courts to exercise the same judiciously in appropriate and exceptional cases. This is one such exceptional case where the said discretion can be exercised in favour of the petitioner. 16. In fact, the very Order VI Rule 17 CPC which enables the parties to seek amendment of pleadings starts with the words "at any stage" which means it is wide enough to hold that the parties to the suit can seek amendment of the pleadings even after commencement of trial of the case and even at the later stage also. However, its proviso restricts its application only to the stage before commencement of the trial of the case. Therefore, there appears to be conflict between enacting part of the order and its proviso. So, it requires harmonious interpretation of the provision to reconcile the enacting part of the order and its proviso. In the considered opinion of this Court the bar contained in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC which is procedural in nature cannot be held to be absolute. As observed supra, in appropriate cases where amendment is required for effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit, the same can be ordered. 17. In the instant case, if ultimately the Trial Court comes to conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to 1/3rd share in the said amount alongwith respondent Nos. 1 and 2, there would be difficulty in passing a decree as the claim is made against respondent Nos. 3 to 8 in the suit. Since the death benefits are already paid to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, leave is to be granted to her to amend the prayer in the relief portion of the plaint to claim her share from respondent Nos. 1 and 2. This would avoid technical hurdles in recovery of the amount if ultimately the result in the suit goes in her favour. 18. 1 and 2, leave is to be granted to her to amend the prayer in the relief portion of the plaint to claim her share from respondent Nos. 1 and 2. This would avoid technical hurdles in recovery of the amount if ultimately the result in the suit goes in her favour. 18. Therefore, the request of the petitioner to accord permission to her to amend the plaint to seek relief against respondents 1 and 2 cannot be rejected on the sole ground that she was not diligent in properly seeking the amendment at the early stage when the defendants 1 and 2 pleaded in their written statement that they have received the amount from the other respondents and on the ground that there are laches on the part of the petitioner in seeking the amendment. 19. In the context, it is relevant to consider the two judgments of the Apex Court which throws light on the controversy involved in this revision petition which are apt to consider to drive home the point involved in this revision petition. 20. The three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Sajjan Kumar v. Ram Kishan, (2005) 13 SCC 89 , held as follows: "It is true that the plaintiff-appellant ought to have been diligent in promptly seeking the amendment in the plaint at an early stage of the suit, more so when the error on the part of the plaintiff was pointed out by the defendant in the written statement itself. Still, we are of the opinion that the proposed amendment was necessary for the purpose of bringing to the fore the real question in controversy between the parties and the refusal to permit the amendment would create needless complications at the stage of execution in the event of the plaintiff-appellant succeeding in the suit." 21. In the above referred case also, when the proceedings of the suit were at the final stage, the appellant moved an application for amendment of plaint. In the above referred case also, when the proceedings of the suit were at the final stage, the appellant moved an application for amendment of plaint. Yet, as the proposed amendment is required to bring to the fore the real question in controversy between the parties, despite the fact that there is a delay and that the amendment was sought at the final stage of the suit, the Apex Court allowed the plaintiff to amend the plaint as the refusal to permit the amendment would create needless complications at the stage of execution in the event of the plaintiff succeeding in the suit. 22. Following the above referred three Judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court, the Supreme Court in another case, in Usha Devi v. Rijwan Ahmad, 2008 (3) ALD 1 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 1147 , also held that the plaintiff who sought correction of description of the suit property by way of amendment of plaint is not diligent as he did not seek amendment at the early stage though wrong description was pointedly brought up by the defendant not only in the written statement but also in course of proceedings, however, proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of bringing to the fore the real question in controversy between the parties. Therefore, proposed amendment was allowed. It is further held that the merit of amendment is hardly a relevant consideration. It is open to the defendants to raise their objection in regard to the amended plaint by way of any corresponding amendments in their written statement. 23. Therefore, from the conspectus of law laid down in the aforesaid two judgments of the Apex Court and particularly in the light of the law laid down in the three Judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court cited supra, the legal position is very clear that when the proposed amendment is necessary for bringing to the fore the real question in controversy between the parties, that the amendment can be allowed, despite the fact that the plaintiff is not diligent in seeking the amendment and despite the bar contained in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. 24. Although learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the matter was also settled by way of paying a substantial amount to the petitioner, respondent Nos. 24. Although learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the matter was also settled by way of paying a substantial amount to the petitioner, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are at liberty to adduce evidence to that effect during the course of trial and it is a matter for the Trial Court to decide in the final adjudication of the suit. So, in view of the aforesaid discussion, in view of circumstances explained supra, this Court is inclined to allow the civil revision petition and set aside the impugned order giving an opportunity to the petitioner to amend the plaint to claim for the relief against respondent Nos. 1 and 2. However, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are to be adequately compensated on account of laches on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is allowed on payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 25. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 27.3.2019 passed in IA No. 2 of 2018 in OS No. 147 of 2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District, and the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC stands allowed on payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner shall take steps to amend the plaint forthwith without any delay. She has to also rectify the technical defects of seeking consequential amendment as required under Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice. 26. While disposing of the main suit, the Trial Court shall decide the lis independently uninfluenced by the observations which are incidentally made in this civil revision petition. 27. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.