JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by which the order dated 11.06.2019 passed in Original Suit No.17 of 2018 by the Court of District Judge-I-cum-Commercial Court, Jamshedpur has been assailed whereby and whereunder a petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as per the pleadings made in the writ petition is that a money suit has been filed being Money Suit No.09 of 2011 praying inter alia for a decree of amount of Rs.10,17,45,402/-along with interest and cost of suit which the petitioner/plaintiff is claiming. Such claim has been agitated by virtue of notice inviting tender being 1/2005-06 dated 22.10.2005 by which the applications have been invited from one or the other bidders for construction of cut and cover from km.16.250 to km. 16.745 and residual open channel of Chandil Left Bank Canal. 3. The petitioner has been awarded the work vide decision taken as contained in Letter No.539 dated 17.03.2006, in pursuance thereto, the agreement has been executed in between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 for execution of work within the time stipulated under the aforesaid agreement. The petitioner has taken efforts to execute the work but due to the fact that the area where the work was to be executed since is falling under the forest coverage area, the hindrance had come which ultimately resulted into non-performance of the terms and conditions of the contract, ultimately the work could not have been completed. The petitioner, therefore, has filed a suit for money claim. Subsequent to filing of the suit, the petitioner came to know about certain documents which has been obtained by someone else under the provision of Right to Information Act which the petitioner has intended to bring on record by way of amendment invoking the jurisdiction of the Court as conferred under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which reads hereunder as:- “After para 1 of the Plaint, para 1(a) be added with following contents: 1(a) The Defendants published Notice Inviting Tender with respect to Forest Land in utter violation of the Gazette of India dated 10/01/2003 and in violation of the (Forest Conservation) Act, 1980 as well as Forest (conservation) Rules, 2003. Even the decision taken in the meeting of the standing committee of National Board for Wildlife held on 06/04/2005 in pursuance to order passed in I.A. No. 35 of 2003 in W.P.(C) No. 337/1995 and communicated on 12/05/2005 has also been violated. After para 1 (a) of the Plaint, para 1(b) be added with following contents:- 1(b) Special Secretary to the Govt. of Jharkhand Mr. Ravi Shankar Verma had issued instructions to all the Principal Secretary/Head of the Department/Divisional Commissioners, DDCs vide Memo No. 2097/A dated 05/09/2005 Vide this letter the Special Secretary has instructed all the concerning offices to invite ad execute tenders in view of the direction given by the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in LPA No.524 of 2003 wherein the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court has directed the State Govt. to invite tenders in the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramna Daya Shetthy vs. International Airport Authority of India & Others (1979) 3 Supreme Court Cases – 489. The incorporation of Clause 14 in the NIT was in utter violation of the standing instruction of the State Govt., Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. After para 4 and before Para 5 of the Plaint, para 4A be added with following contents:- 4A. “The then Project Administrator (Mr. Bijay Kumar Tripathy I.A.S.) had written letter no.277 dated 22/02/2006 to all the Chief Engineers, all the Superintending Engineers and all the Executive Engineers under the subject ^^ou Hkwfe esa fcuk vuqefr ds dk;Z ugh djkus ds laca/k esa** Vide this letter the Project Administrator directed not to do any construction work over the Forest Land prior to the clearance obtained from the Forest and Environment Department. It was also directed to close any agreement or tender invited on the Forest Land in the current financial year. The Defendants concealing the directions given by the Project Administrator entered into an Agreement with the Plaintiff on 10/04/2006 on a non-acquired forest land. After para 4A of the Plaint, para 4B and para 4C be added with following contents:- 4B. “The then Project Administrator (Mr. Bijay Kumar Tripathy, I.A.S) had written letter no.1349 dated 20/11/2006 to the Chief Engineer, Chandil Complex, Adityapur with copy to the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. After para 4A of the Plaint, para 4B and para 4C be added with following contents:- 4B. “The then Project Administrator (Mr. Bijay Kumar Tripathy, I.A.S) had written letter no.1349 dated 20/11/2006 to the Chief Engineer, Chandil Complex, Adityapur with copy to the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi (under the subject ^^dk;Z LFky ij Hkw&vtZu@ou foHkkx ls lacaf/kr fooknksa ds lek/kku dk nkf;Ro laosndksa dks fn, tkus ds laca/k esa** An explanation was sought from the Chief Engineer about incorporating condition in the NIT regarding solution of disputes related to land acquisition and forest clearance through the contractors. It has been specifically stated that land acquisition for any project is the responsibility of the Govt. department. 4C. “The then Superintending Engineer, (Er. Jayprakash Jha), had written letter no.1/pmc/ fofo/k- 30/2002 61/Ranchi dated 12/01/2007 to the Chief Engineer, Subernarekha Multipurpose Project, Chandil Complex Adityapur, Jamshedpur with copy to all the Chief Engineers, Water Resources Department, Jharkhand for information and necessary action and also copy to the Project Administrator, Subernarekha Multipurpose Project for information against his letter no. 1349 dated 20/11/2006 (under the subject ^^dk;Z LFky ij Hkw&vtZu@ou foHkkx ls lacaf/kr fooknksa ds lek/kku dk nkf;Ro laosndksa dks fn, tkus ds laca/k esa** It was clearly stated in the letter that keeping clause in the NIT regarding solution of the disputes related to land acquisition and forest clearance through contractors was not appropriate. After para 7 and before Para 8 of the Plaint, para 7(a) be added with following contents:- 7(a) (Sri K.K. Singh) The Chief Engineer vide Memo No.762 dated 20/04/2006 had intimated to the Administrator, Subernarekha Project regarding the news published in the Hindustan Newspaper on 18/04/2006 and action taken by Regional Forest Conservator for executing work on the forest land without prior approval of the forest department, but, in spite of that no action was taken in favour of the Plaintiff. After para 24 of the Plaint, para 24(a) be added with following contents:- 24(a) That it is submitted that the Bank Guarantee was given by the Plaintiff as Performance Guarantee and the period of agreement expired on 09/10/2007, the Defendants were quite wrong in getting the bank guarantee revoked on 21/10/2008 and got deposited the amount of Rs.29,46,500/-in their bank accounts without the consent of the Plaintiff. This is unjustified and illegal. This is unjustified and illegal. The Plaintiff has been put to heavy loss and the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount with interest and other losses for which claim has been made.” 4. The said amendment petition has been objected by the defendant/the State of Jharkhand. The trial Court has passed an order on 11.06.2019 by which the amendment sought for is rejected against which the present writ petition has been filed inter alia on the ground that the trial Court has rejected the aforesaid amendment mainly on the ground of delay and without appreciating that even after those amendments would be allowed, the nature and character of the suit will not be changed. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Chanchal Jain, learned AC to learned AG for the respondents/defendants to the suit has submitted that there is no error in the impugned order since earlier to the present amendment application which is the subject matter of the instant writ petition one amendment petition has been filed on 06.09.2017 seeking the aforesaid amendment to be incorporated in the plaint and after almost about two years, the second petition has been filed for seeking the same amendment as on 30.04.2019 although the documents which have been said to be obtained under RTI is dated 10.11.2017 and as such, it is not a case of showing due diligence by the plaintiff and hence, showing due diligence is the mandatory requirement of the provision of Order VI Rule 17 and having not been observed, the impugned order requires no interference. 6. Further submission has been made that since the trial has commenced, meaning thereby, the issues have been framed and as such, due diligence is required to be shown by the petitioner as has been held by Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India, reported in 2005 (6) SCC 344 . 7. In response to the aforesaid submission, Mr. 7. In response to the aforesaid submission, Mr. Shresth Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while considering the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, liberal approach is to be seen and the Court concerned should not adopt hyper-technical approach since the paramount consideration is to be considered about the substantive justice and if the nature and character of the suit is not going to be changed merely on the ground of delay, the amendment petition should not have been dismissed by the trial Court. 8. This Court after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of their rival submissions, deem it fit and proper to reflect the provision of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, which reads hereunder as: “[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 that the present provision has been restored by virtue of amendment incorporated under the Code of Civil Procedure by virtue of the CPC Amendment Act, 2002 w.e.f. 01.07.2002 but with certain limitation i.e., a new proviso has been added to the rule, that no application for amendment of the pleading 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. Thus after the trial of the case has commenced, no application for amendment of the pleading shall be allowed 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. 9. Thus after the trial of the case has commenced, no application for amendment of the pleading shall be allowed 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. 9. It is true that the parties interested in delaying the trial of the case make misuse of this provision by making frivolous amendment and after rejection of the application, going in revision before the higher forum delaying the proceeding before the lower court and as such to shorten the litigation and speed up the decision in the cases, this amendment was made by deleting Rule 17 from the Code, but however, the same was restored by virtue of the Amendment Act of 2002. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the object and scope in the case of Rajkumar Gurawara vs. M/s S.K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2008 (14) SCC 364 has been pleased to hold that the grant of application for amendment shall be subject to certain conditions, that are :- (i) when the nature of suit is changed by permitting amendment; (ii) when the amendment would result in introducing new cause of action and intends to prejudice the other party; (iii) when allowing the amendment application defeats the law of limitation; Likewise in the judgment rendered in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanswamy and Sons and Others, reported in 2009 (10) SCC 84 the basic principle which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing and rejecting the application are : (i) Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case? (ii) Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide? (iii) The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (iv) Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (v) Whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case? and (vi) As a general rule, amendment shall be rejected, if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation. and (vi) As a general rule, amendment shall be rejected, if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation. In the case of Rajkumar Gurawara vs. M/s S.K. Sarwagi (supra) a pre-trial amendment could have been allowed liberally as the opposite party would not have prejudiced because he will have an opportunity of meeting the amendment sought to be made. It has further been held in the judgment rendered in the case of Raj Kumar vs. Dipender Kaur Sethi reported in (2005) 9 SCC 304 by stipulating the guiding principle of amendment to the effect that all amendments ought to be made for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties to any proceeding or of correcting any defect or error in any proceeding. In the judgment rendered in the case of M/S. Estralla Rubber vs. Dass Estate (Private) Ltd, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 97 wherein it has been laid down at paragraph 5 that merely because there was delay in making the amendment application, when no serious prejudice is shown to have been caused to the plaintiff so as to take away any accrued right, the application could not be rejected. At any rate, it cannot be said that allowing the amendment caused irretrievable prejudice to the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff can file his reply to the amended written statement and fight the case on merit. In the judgment rendered in the case of Rameshkumar Agarwal vs. Rajmala Exports Private Limited and Others, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 337 at paragraph 21 thereof, it has been laid down that while deciding the application for amendment ordinarily the court must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide and dishonest amendments. The purpose and object of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC 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 hypertechnical 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. 11. Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, but the courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hypertechnical 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. 11. This Court is now proceeding to assess the factual aspect in order to assess the legality and propriety of the impugned order. 12. The petitioner /plaintiff has filed a suit in the nature of money suit praying inter alia therein for a decree of an amount of Rs.10,17,45,402/-along with the interest and cost of the suit. 13. The aforesaid suit has been filed in the in the background of a notice inviting tender being 1/2005-06 dated 22.10.2005 for construction of cut and cover from km.16.250 to km.16.745 and residual open channel of Chandil Left Bank Canal, in the aforesaid bid, the petitioner has been found to be successful bidder, in pursuance thereto, one agreement was enriched in between the petitioner and the respondent No.2. 14. It is the case of the petitioner that after enrichment of that agreement all preliminary arrangements have been made by mobilizing resources in order to commence the work but the said work was stopped by the forest department which ultimately resulted into closure of the work. 15. The petitioner therefore has approached before the competent court of civil jurisdiction for the money claim. After framing of the issues petitioners were filed for amendment seeking leave of the Court to allow the plaintiff to incorporate certain documents in the plaint, first one was filed on 06.09.2017, second one was filed on 21.12.2017 but no order were passed on those petitions thereafter a third amendment petition was filed on 30.04.2019 as has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. 16. The amendment sought for in the petition dated 06.09.2017 has been annexed as S/1 to the supplementary affidavit whereby and whereunder following amendment was sought for, which reads hereunder as : “After para 1 of the Plaint, para 1(a) be added with following contents: 1(a) The Defendants published Notice Inviting Tender with respect to Forest Land in utter violation of the Gazette of India dated 10/01/2003 and in violation of the (Forest Conservation) Act, 1980 as well as Forest (conservation) Rules, 2003. Even the decision taken in the meeting of the standing committee of National Board for Wildlife held on 06/04/2005 in pursuance to order passed in I.A. No. 35 of 2003 in W.P.(C) No. 337/1995 and communicated on 12/05/2005 has also been violated. After para 1 (a) of the Plaint, para 1(b) be added with following contents:- 1(b) Special Secretary to the Govt. of Jharkhand Mr. Ravi Shankar Verma had issued instructions to all the Principal Secretary/Head of the Department/Divisional Commissioners, DDCs vide Memo No. 2097/A dated 05/09/2005 under the subject. After para 7 of the Plaint, para 7(a) be added with following contents:- 7(a) Sri K.K. Singh, Chief Engineer vide Memo No. 762 dated 20/04/2006 had intimated to the Administrator, Subernarekha Project regarding the news published in the Hindustan Newspaper on 18/04/2006 and action taken by Regional Forest Conservator, but, in spite of that no action was taken in favour of the Plaintiff. After para 24 of the Plaint, para 24(a) be added with following contents:- 24(a) That it is submitted that the Bank Guarantee was given by the Plaintiff as Performance Guarantee and the period of agreement expired on 09/10/2007, the Defendants were quite wrong in getting the bank guarantee revoked on 21/10/2008 and got deposited the amount of Rs.29,46,500/-in their bank accounts without the consent of the Plaintiff. This is unjustified and illegal. The Plaintiff has been put to heavy loss and the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the said amount with interest and other losses for which claim has been made. After para 26 of the Plaint, para 26(a) be added with following contents:- It is in this context that we are reminded of the sterling 26(a) the observations of the Constitution Bench in DTC -vs-DTC Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101 (in these words) as made in para 281 are as follows:- ‘The trinity of the Constitution assure to every citizen social and economic justice, equality of status and of opportunity with dignity of the person. The State is to strive to minimise the inequality in income and eliminate inequality in status between individuals or groups of people. The State has intervened with the freedom of contract and interposed by making statutory law like Rent Acts, Debt Relief Acts, Tenancy Acts, Social Welfare and Industrial Laws and Statutory Rules prescribing conditions of service and a host of other laws. The State has intervened with the freedom of contract and interposed by making statutory law like Rent Acts, Debt Relief Acts, Tenancy Acts, Social Welfare and Industrial Laws and Statutory Rules prescribing conditions of service and a host of other laws. All these Acts and Rules are made to further the social solidarity and as a step towards establishing an egalitarian socialist order. This Court, as a court of constitutional conscience enjoined and is jealously to project and uphold new values in establishing the egalitarian social order. As a court or constitution functionary exercising equity jurisdiction, this Court would relieve the weaker parties from unconstitutional contractual obligations, unjust, unfair, oppressive and unconscionable rules or conditions when the citizen is really unable to meet on equal terms with the State. It is to find whether the citizen, when entering into contracts of service, was in distress need or compelling circumstances to enter into contract on dotted lines or whether the citizen was in a position of either to –take it or leave it and if it finds to be so, this court would not shrink to avoid the contract by appropriate declaration. Therefore, though certainty is an important value in normal commercial contract law, it is not an absolute and immutable one but is subject to change in the changing social conditions. (Emphasis Supplied)’ After para 26(a) of the Plaint, para 26(b) be added with following contents:- In LIC of India versus Consumer Education & Research Centre case (1995) 5 SCC 482 , the observation made in extract of para 47 are as follows:- It is, therefore, the settled law that if a contract or a clause in a contract is found unreasonable or unfair or irrational, one must look to the relative bargaining power of the contracting parties. In dotted line contracts there would be no occasion for a weaker party to bargain or to assume to have equal bargaining power. He has either to accept or leave the services or goods in terms of the dotted line contract. His option would be either to accept the unreasonable or unfair terms or forego the service forever.” Second amendment petition was filed on 21.12.2017 wherein the following amendments have been sought for, which reads hereunder as : “After para 4A of the Plaint, para 4B be added with following contents:- 4B. “The then Project Administrator Mr. His option would be either to accept the unreasonable or unfair terms or forego the service forever.” Second amendment petition was filed on 21.12.2017 wherein the following amendments have been sought for, which reads hereunder as : “After para 4A of the Plaint, para 4B be added with following contents:- 4B. “The then Project Administrator Mr. Bijay Kumar Tripathy, I.A.S had written letter no. 1349 dated 20/11/2006 to the Chief Engineer, Chandil Complex, Adityapur with copy to the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi under the subject.” After para 4B of the Plaint, para 4C be added with following contents:- 4C. “The then Superintending Engineer, Er. Jayprakash Jha, had written letter no. 1/pmc/fofo/k-30/2002 61/Ranchi dated 12/01/2007 to the Chief Engineer, Subernarekha Multipurpose Project, Chandil Complex Adityapur, Jamshedpur with copy to all the Chief Engineers, Water Resources Department, Jharkhand for information and necessary action and also copy to the Project Administrator, Subernarekha Multipurpose Project for information against his letter no. 1349 dated 20/11/2006 under the subject.” After para 26(b) of the Plaint, para 26(c) be added with following contents:- 26(c) The issue as to when time is of the essence of the contract arose for consideration before the Supreme Court in (1979) 2 SCC 70 Hind Construction Contractors vs. State of Maharashtra. The court relied on the enunciation of the law in the Halsbury's Laws of England. The principles relied on by the court and laid down in this judgment deserve to be considered in extenso and read as follows:- “7. …In the latest 4th Edn. Of Halsbury's Laws of England in regard to building and engineering contracts the statement of law is to be found in Vol.4, para 1179, which runs thus: “1179. Where time is of the essence of the contract.-The expression time is of the essence means that a breach of the condition as to the time for performance will entitle the innocent party to consider the breach as a repudiation of the contract. Exceptionally, the completion of the work by a specified date may be a condition precedent to the contractor's right to claim payment. The parties may expressly provide that time is of the essence of the contract and where there is power to determine contract on a failure to complete by the specified date, the stipulation as to time will be fundamental. The parties may expressly provide that time is of the essence of the contract and where there is power to determine contract on a failure to complete by the specified date, the stipulation as to time will be fundamental. Other provisions of the contract may, on the construction of the contract, exclude an inference that the completion of the works by a particular date is fundamental; time is not of the essence where a sum is payable for each week that the work remains incomplete after the date fixed, nor where the parties contemplate a postponement of completion. After para 26(c) of the Plaint, para 26 (d) be added with following contents:- 26(d) In M/s Arosan Enterprises Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (1999) 9 SCC 449 , the Supreme Court had held that merely because a schedule is contractually prescribed or a provision for liquidated damages is contained in a contract, it does not mean that ipso facto time is necessarily of the essence of the contract. The court held that:- “27. Mere fixation of a period of delivery or a time in regard thereto does not by itself make the time as the essence of the contract, but the agreement shall have to be considered in its entirety and on proper appreciation of the intent and purport of the clauses incorporated therein. The state of facts and the relevant terms of the Agreement ought to be noticed in its proper perspective so as to assess the intent of the parties. The Agreement must be read as a whole with corresponding obligations of the parties so as to ascertain the true intent of the parties. In the instant case, the Port of Discharge has not been named neither the Surveyor is appointed – without whose certificate, question of any payment would not arise – can it still be said that time was the essence of the contract, in our view the answer cannot but be a positive 'No'.” After para 26(d) of the Plaint, para 26(e) be added with following contents:- 26(e) It is settled law that in construction contracts, generally time is not of the essence of the contract unless special features exist therefore. It was so held in (2006) 11 SCC 181 McDermott International Inc. vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors. It was so held in (2006) 11 SCC 181 McDermott International Inc. vs. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors. Mere incorporation of the term that time is of the essence of the contract would not ipso facto render it so if the same is the matter of construction keeping in view the facts and circumstances which are brought out on record.” Third amendment petition has been filed on 30.04.2019 under which the proposed amendment as has been sought for in the earlier petitions have also been incorporated and that has been placed before the trial court but the same has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has failed to show due diligence. 17. It is not in dispute that if the amendment having been sought for under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, after insertion of the said provision, the due diligence is required to be shown by the parties, the plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, if the amendment is sought to be brought after framing of the issues. 18. Simultaneously the question of prejudice is also to be looked into and if the proposed amendment is necessary for proper adjudication of the issues, the court should not go on hyper-technicality rather liberal approach is to be taken in allowing the amendment as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/S. Estralla Rubber vs. Dass Estate (Private) Ltd (supra). 19. This Court has appreciated the finding recorded in the impugned order with the factual aspects. 20. The factual aspect which is not in dispute in this case is that the petitioner has participated in the bid in which has been found to be successful and thereafter his contention is that the resources have been mobilized for commencement of the work but due to hindrance created by the forest department, the work could not have been commenced. 21. The stand has been taken by the forest department that the land where the work was to be executed since is forest land, therefore, the work cannot be allowed to be commenced. 22. The petitioner’s contention is that when the land where the work was to be commenced was forest land then why the State Government has come out with the notice inviting application for execution of the work contrary to the different circulars issued by the State of Jharkhand through its forest department. 22. The petitioner’s contention is that when the land where the work was to be commenced was forest land then why the State Government has come out with the notice inviting application for execution of the work contrary to the different circulars issued by the State of Jharkhand through its forest department. 23. However, at the time of filing of the plaint no such circulars have been annexed by the petitioner along with the plaint but subsequent thereto, when the documents came into possession of the petitioner through the legal means, the applications have been made for seeking amendment in the plaint by making petition under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. 24. It is evident from the amendment petitions that certain circulars either issued by the State of Jharkhand or by the Forest Department have been sought to be inserted along with certain statement but the same has been rejected. 25. The question herein is that when the documents which are being sought to be incorporated by way of amendment to the plaint if found to be necessary for proper adjudication and if it would not be allowed to be incorporated on technicality as has been opined by the trial Court while rejecting the aforesaid petition, there cannot be any proper adjudication of the issues involved in this case. 26. It is not in dispute that while allowing the amendment, the nature and character of the suit is not allowed to be changed either before commencement of the trial or after the commencement of the trial and further to consider the due diligence of the parties but if on due diligence amendment petition would be rejected without any prejudice be caused to the other side, it will not be proper adjudication of the issues agitated, as such, if the issue of prejudice to the other side is taken care of vis-a-viz if the nature and character of the suit is not going to be changed, the amendment is required to be allowed. This Court has examined the issue about change in the nature and character of the suit by going across the pleading made in the plaint as also the amendment which is being sought to be incorporated and has found therefrom that the amendment is only to incorporate certain Government Circulars issued by the departments of State of Jharkhand and as such in that view of the matter, these documents are not new for the defendants. 27. The only question would be that if the amendment would be allowed, the documents would be allowed to be incorporated in the plaint, the defendant should not be made to suffer i.e., no prejudice is to be caused to the defendant. 28. This Court after going into the averment made in the plaint whereby and whereunder the ground has been taken for seeking the money claim on the ground that when the notice inviting tender has been issued by one of the department of the State of Jharkhand, the other departments have stopped from commencing of the work, therefore, it is a case of non-coordination in between two departments of the State of Jharkhand, as such, the money claim has been filed for claiming compensation along with damages with interest. 29. It is also the legal position that merely by allowing the amendment no adjudication can be said to be done rather the amendment is for proper adjudication of the issues raised by the parties by providing proper opportunity to the other side. 30. 29. It is also the legal position that merely by allowing the amendment no adjudication can be said to be done rather the amendment is for proper adjudication of the issues raised by the parties by providing proper opportunity to the other side. 30. The relevant requirement is to see that the proposed amendment is not in deviation from the pleading made in the plaint or written statement, as the case may be, and there may not be any recilement of the admission made in the plaint or in the written statement, as the case may be, but after going across the averment made in the amendment petitions, this Court, is of the view that the documents which has been sought to be incorporated being the Government Circulars is having direct nexus with the pleading made in the plaint, therefore, have got bearing for proper adjudication of the issues but the trial Court after recording the reason of lack of due diligence has rejected the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 on the ground that the earlier to the present petition dated 30.04.2019 two other petitions have already been filed, even accepting that if two petitions have been filed by the plaintiff and no orders have been passed thereupon, the trial Court ought to have taken into consideration for proper adjudication in order to avoid further litigation so that there may not be any multiplicity of proceeding and the proper adjudication of the issues may be done. 31. This Court, after taking into consideration the aforesaid position of law as referred in the judgment rendered hereinabove as also the factual aspect, is of the view that the trial Court ought to have appreciated all these aspects of the matter instead of going into hyper-technicality, therefore, is of the view that the impugned order needs interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. In the result, the amendment petition dated 30.04.2019 is allowed. 32. This Court, before parting with the order, deem it fit and proper to consider the issue of prejudice which the other side is to suffer, therefore, according to the considered view of this Court since the amendment has been allowed by this Court, it would be just and proper to provide an opportunity to the respondents/defendants to file additional evidence, if the defendants so wish. 33. In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed, accordingly, stands disposed of.