ORDER : This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein order dated 22.03.2017 passed in Title (Partition) Suit Case No.55 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, petition dated 29.09.2014, filed by the defendant/petitioner, under order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, seeking therein amendment in the written statement by incorporating therein the details as follows:- “It is respectfully submitted that flat no.1/24 was allotted in the name of M/s Jamshedpur Traders, 85 Hume Pipe Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur vide allotment letter no.321 dated 11.02.74 requested of the allottee again allotted in the name of Neeraj Chandra the plaintfiff on rental basis by the housing Board as evident from the letter dated 6.8.91. The house in question was delivered in the plaintiff's possession on 01.09.91. Subsequently, under the scheme of Bihar State Housing Board for sale of the housing board flats, earlier give on rental basis the defendant no.1 requested for sale of the above flat in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Board transferred the above flat in the name of plaintiff Registered Deed no.5351 dated 31.12.2007”. 2. The court having considered the stage of suit since at that time the issues were not framed and therefore, the same was allowed, against which the writ petition has been filed. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and going across the pleading made in the writ petition as also the impugned order it is evident that a suit has been filed in between the defendant and plaintiff for partition of the suit property and after filing of the written statement and before framing of the issues, a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC has been filed for making the amendment as quoted hereinabove. 4. 4. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as per the pleading made in the writ petition as also the impugned order is that a suit for partition has been filed in the year 2013 and on the date when the order impugned has been passed, issues were not framed and at that juncture, an application dated 29.09.2014 has been filed under Order-VI Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking therein a relief to incorporate a new paragraph as paragraph-12 (a) with respect to below paragraph-12 which reads as under: “It is respectfully submitted that flat no.1/12/4 was allotted in the name of M/s Jamshedpur Traders, 85 Hume Pipe Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur vide allotment letter no.321 dated 11.02.1974 requested of the allottee again allotted in the name of Neeraj Chandra the plaintiff on rental basis by the housing Board as evident from the letter dated 06.08.1991. The house in question was delivered in the plaintiff's possession on 01.09.91. Subsequently, under the scheme of Bihar State Housing Board for sale of the housing board flats, earlier give on rental basis the defendant no.1 requested for sale of the above flat in favour of the plaintiff'. Accordingly, the Board transferred the above flat in the name of plaintiff Registered Deed no.5351 dated 31.12.2007”. The trial court after taking into consideration the fact that the suit is for partition of the property and flat was purchased from the joint family property and, therefore, the amendment has been sought for inclusion of the aforesaid property in the partition suit, which has been allowed by taking into consideration the fact that the issue has not been framed and, therefore, the trial court has not commenced the said issue. The trial court has also taken into consideration the multiplicity of the proceeding and the aforesaid order is under challenge. It is not in dispute that an application under Order-VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking an amendment in the plaint can be allowed in the following circumstances: (i) When the nature of a suit is not changed. (ii) The amendment would not result in introducing new cause of action. (iii) When it defeat the law of limitation, if fresh suit of the amendment is brought in plaint would be barred. (ii) The amendment would not result in introducing new cause of action. (iii) When it defeat the law of limitation, if fresh suit of the amendment is brought in plaint would be barred. However, as a general rule, it would be rejected but to avoid the multiplicity it can be allowed at the pre-trial stage as the opposite party would not be prejudiced because he will have an opportunity of rebutting it, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of, which is as under: Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Through LRS. Vs. S. K. Sarwagi And Company Private Limited And Another, (2008) 14 SCC 364 , Para-18 18. Further, it is relevant to point out that in the original suit, the plaintiff prayed for declaration of his exclusive right to do mining operations and to use and sell the suit schedule property and in the petition filed during the course of the arguments, he prayed for recovery of possession and damages from the second defendant. It is settled law that the grant of application for amendment be subject to certain conditions, namely, (i) when the nature of it 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 amendment application defeats the law of limitation. The plaintiff not only failed to satisfy the conditions prescribed in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 but even on merits his claim is liable to be rejected. All these relevant aspects have been duly considered by the High Court and rightly set aside the order dated 10-3-2004 of the Additional District Judge. Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Through LRS. Vs. M/s. S. K. Sarwagi & Company Private Limited And Another, AIR 2008 SC 2303 , Para -5 Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. confers jurisdiction on the Court to allow either, party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings on such terms as may be just. Such amendments seeking determination of the real question of the controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made. Pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial. Such amendments seeking determination of the real question of the controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made. Pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial. The opposite party is not prejudiced because he will have an opportunity of meeting the amendment sought to be made. In the latter case, namely, after the commencement of trial, particularly, after completion of the evidence, the question of prejudice to the opposite party may arise and in such event, it is incumbent on the part of the Court to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the proviso. Revajeetu Builders And Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy And Sons And Others, (2009) 10 SCC 84 , Para 63 : 63. On critically analysing 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. 5. This Court after looking into settled position of law so far as scope of provision of Order-VI Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, has found that the trial court in order to avoid multiplicity of proceeding and since the trial has not commenced as because issues were not framed hence keeping the fact into consideration that no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff, has allowed the aforesaid amendment application to be incorporated in the suit. 6. 6. It has been gathered by this Court that the amendment sought for is with respect to making amendment in the written statement with respect to Flat No.1/12/4 which was alleged to be under the Jamshedpur Traders, subsequently alleged that Neeraj Chandra the plaintiff, on rental basis by Housing Board and subsequently under the scheme of Bihar Housing Board the defendant no.1 requested for sale of the above flat in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly, the board transferred the above flat in the name of plaintiff registered deed no.5351 dated 31.12.2007 and if the aforesaid amendment would be allowed to be incorporated in the written statement the same will be adjudicated by the trial court where the plaintiff will have an opportunity to rebut the stand of defendant with respect to the propriety right over the said property in question since the issue has not been framed therefore, in the considered view of this Court while allowing the said amendment, the trial court has not committed an error. This Court is also concerned with the scope of provision under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that this case needs no interference in exercise of revisional power conferred to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court also intends to go through the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dealing with the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vrs. Rajendra Shankar Patii, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 has been pleased to laid down therein regarding the scope of Article 227 which relates to the supervisory powers of the High Courts and by taking aid of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vrs. Sukumar Mukherjee, reported in AIR 1951 Calcutta 193, wherein it has been laid down that Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not vest the High Court with limit less power which may be exercised at the court’s discretion to remove the hardship of particular decisions. The power of superintendence confers power of a known and well recognized character and should be exercised on those judicial principles which give it its character. The power of superintendence confers power of a known and well recognized character and should be exercised on those judicial principles which give it its character. In general words, the High Court’s power of superintendence is a power to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of the authority, to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. The power of superintendence is not to be exercised unless there has been; 1. An unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in a court or tribunal; or 2. gross abuse of jurisdiction; or 3. an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in courts or tribunals. Further, in the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken aid of a judgment rendered in the case of Mani Nariman Daruwala Vrs. Phiroz N. Bhatena, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 141 wherein it has been laid down that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court can set aside or reverse finding of an inferior court or tribunal only in a case where there is no evidence or where no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the court or tribunal has come to. The Hon’ble Apex Court has made it clear that except to this limited extent the High court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of facts. Further, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani Vrs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 576 it has been laid down that the High Court under Article 227 cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. Its exercise must be restricted to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. It has been laid down at paragraph 47 of the aforesaid judgment that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is not original nor is it appellable. This jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 is for both administrative and judicial superintendence. Therefore, the powers conferred under Article 226 and 227 are separate and distinct and operate in different fields. It has been laid down at paragraph 47 of the aforesaid judgment that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is not original nor is it appellable. This jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 is for both administrative and judicial superintendence. Therefore, the powers conferred under Article 226 and 227 are separate and distinct and operate in different fields. Another distinction between these two jurisdictions is that under Article 226 the High Court normal annuls or quashes an order or proceedings but in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court, apart from annulling the proceeding, can also substitute the impugned order by the order which the inferior tribunal should have made. It has further been laid down regarding the powers to be exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence, can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and courts subordinate to it within the bounds of its authority, in order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested with them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. Apart from that, High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunals and courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised. 7. In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised. 7. This Court after going across the finding of the trial court in the impugned order and looking into the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is of the view that the amendment which has been allowed at the stage of framing of issue and, therefore, no prejudice caused to the parties and as per the settled position of law so far as the applicability of the provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is concerned, the amendment can be allowed before commencement of the trial, which will not prejudice the right of the other party. 8. In view of such situation, it cannot be said that the Trial Court has committed illegality and, hence, this Court refrains itself from exercising the jurisdiction, conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the writ petition lacks merits as such the same is dismissed.