JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order which has been passed by the learned trial Court dated 24.05.2019, vide which an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code filed by the respondent herein i.e. plaintif before the learned trial Court, for amendment of the plaint, stands allowed, as also by the act of the learned trial Court, whereby it has taken on record an amended plaint filed by the plaintif, which contained amendment in excess of what was proposed in the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code and what stood allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 24.05.2019. 2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner shall be satisfied in case this petition is allowed to the extent that proposed amended plaint which has been filled by the respondent/ plaintif, is ordered to be struck of from the record by the learned trial Court and the plaintif is directed to file a fresh amended plaint strictly inconsonance with the proposed amendments as were pleaded in the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, which stood allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 24.05.2019. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is no infirmity in the amended plaint which has been filed by the plaintif after the amendment was permitted as the same is in sinc with what was permitted to be amended by the learned trial Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the original plaint, application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, order passed in the same as well as the amended plaint. 5. A perusal of said three documents and order prima facie demonstrate that there is merit in the contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The amended plaint contains averments which were not proposed for amendment in the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code nor allowed. Yet, while taking on record the amended plaint, this extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned trial Court. The amended plaint contains averments which were not proposed for amendment in the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code nor allowed. Yet, while taking on record the amended plaint, this extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned trial Court. In other words, now what has happened is in that in the garb of filing of the amended plaint, plaintif has incorporated even those amendments in the same, which were neither proposed in the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code nor which were allowed by the learned trial Court. 6. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, this petition is allowed to the extent that the amended plaint filed by the plaintif is ordered to be struck of from the record of the learned trial Court. Plaintif shall file an amended plaint within a period of four weeks from today. This amended plaint shall be strictly inconsonance with the original plaint as well as the amendments which have been allowed by the learned trial Court. 7. It is clarified that in case any further mischief is played by the plaintif while filing the amended plaint, this Court shall take a very serious view of the same. Petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications if any, also stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, also stands vacated.