JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, challenging the order, dated 29.04.2019, passed in I.A.No.267 of 2019 in O.S.No.27 of 2013, by the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, whereby, the petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein/defendants 13 and 14 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC and Rule 28 of the Civil Rules of Practice, for amendment of written statement, was allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff would contend that the trial in the subject suit in O.S.No.27 of 2013 had commenced by filing the chief affidavit of P.W.1 and marking of the documents. The Court below, under the premise that trial in the subject suit has not commenced, was pleased to allow the subject interlocutory application. The learned counsel further submits that the respondents 1 and 2 herein/defendants 13 and 14 have to establish that in spite of due diligence, such plea was not taken before commencement of trial. There is no finding to that effect in the impugned order of the Court below and ultimately prayed to set aside the order under challenge and allow the Civil Revision Petition as prayed for. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff had relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in Mohinder Kumar Mehra Vs. Roop Rani Mehra and others (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases 132). 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/defendants 13 and 14, would contend that inadvertently, the proposed amendment, as indicated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the subject interlocutory application, i.e., “thus, the defendant No.13 & 14 through their father who is the defendant No.11, have perfected their title even by virtue of adverse possession and also by prescription, since they are enjoying continuous and long possession”, was omitted in the written statement and immediately on noticing the same, the said amendment was sought. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/plaintiff, if the written statement is amended as sought for. The Court below had rightly dealt with this aspect and ultimately, allowed the subject interlocutory application. No prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/plaintiff, if the written statement is amended as sought for. The Court below had rightly dealt with this aspect and ultimately, allowed the subject interlocutory application. In an application to amend the written statement, the Court shall not go into technicalities and ultimately prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/defendants 13 & 14 had relied on the same decision which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, i.e., Mohinder Kumar Mehra’s case supra. 5. In view of the above rival submissions, the point that arises for determination in this Civil Revision Petition is as follows : “Whether the order, dated 29.04.2019, passed in I.A.No.267 of 2019 in O.S.No.27 of 2013, by the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, is liable to be set aside?” Point : 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff relied on Mohinder Kumar Mehra’s case supra, wherein, the Apex Court, held as follows: 17. Although Order VI Rule 17 permits amendment in the pleadings “at any stage of the proceedings”, but a limitation has been engrafted by means of Proviso to the fact that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial is commenced. Reserving the Court’s jurisdiction to order for permitting the party to amend pleading on being satisfied that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In a suit when trial commences? Order XVIII of the C.P.C. deal with “Hearing of the Suit and Examination of Witnesses”. Issues are framed under Order XIV. At the first hearing of the suit, the Court after reading the plaint and written statement and after examination under Rule 1 of Order XIV is to frame issues. Order XV deals with “Disposal of the Suit at the first hearing”, when it appears that the parties are not in issue of any question of law or a fact. After issues are framed and case is fixed for hearing and the party having right to begin is to produce his evidence, the trial of suit commences. 18. This Court in Vidyabai & Ors. Vs. Padmalatha & Anr., { (2009) 2 SCC 409 } held that filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the witnesses amounts to commencement of proceedings. 18. This Court in Vidyabai & Ors. Vs. Padmalatha & Anr., { (2009) 2 SCC 409 } held that filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the witnesses amounts to commencement of proceedings. In Paragraph 11 of the judgment, following has been held:- “11. From the order passed by the learned trial Judge, it is evident that the respondents had not been able to fulfil the said precondition. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is as to whether the trial had commenced or not. In our opinion, it did. The date on which the issues are framed is the date of first hearing. Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure envisage taking of various steps at different stages of the proceeding. Filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the witness, in our opinion, would amount to “commencement of proceeding.” 7. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the findings of the Apex Court in the aforementioned decision. In the instant case, it is evident from the record that the subject interlocutory application was filed after filing of the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of P.W.1 and marking of the documents under Ex.A.1 to A.24. It establishes that the subject interlocutory application was filed after commencement of the trial. The respondents 1 and 2 herein/defendants 13 and 14 have stated in their affidavit filed in support of the subject interlocutory application that the petitioner/plaintiff had filed a false suit for partition, besides claiming consequential relief by claiming his false succession through his father from one Mr.Syed Shah Abdullah, which is far from truth, and that the respondents 1 and 2 herein/defendants 13 and 14 have perfected their title by virtue of adverse possession and prescription with the knowledge of one and all and that inadvertently, they have failed to take the said plea in their pleadings in the written statement, which is essential for determination of the subject suit and that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner/plaintiff if the written statement is amended. Admittedly, cross-examination of P.W.1 has not commenced in the subject suit. In an application for amendment of pleadings, the question to be considered by the Court is whether such amendment would be necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties to the suit. Admittedly, cross-examination of P.W.1 has not commenced in the subject suit. In an application for amendment of pleadings, the question to be considered by the Court is whether such amendment would be necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties to the suit. The amendment should generally be allowed, unless it is shown that permitting such amendment would be unjust and results in prejudice to the other side. In the instant case, the respondents 1 and 2 herein/defendants 13 and 14 contended that it is essential to amend the written statement to take a plea that they have perfected their rights by adverse possession. The Court below allowed the subject interlocutory application holding that no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioner/plaintiff, by amending the written statement as sought for. 8. In Mohinder Kumar Mehra’s case supra, the Apex Court, relying on Mahila Ramkali Devi & others Vs. Nandram (dead) through L.R.s and others { (2015) 13 SCC 132 }, held as follows: 28. While considering the prayer of amendment of the pleadings by a party, this Court in the case of Mahila Ramkali Devi & Ors. Vs. Nandram (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors., { (2015) 13 SCC 132 } has again reiterated the basic principles, which are to be kept in mind while considering such applications in Paragrpahs 20, 21 and 22, which is quoted as below:- “20. It is well settled that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the ad- ministration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure. The court always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost. 9. As per the submissions made and the material placed on record, it appears that inadvertently, the respondents 1 and 2 herein/defendants 13 and 14 have omitted to take some pleas in the written statement filed by them. Having noticed the same, they filed the subject interlocutory application, which was allowed by the Court below. The amendment sought would not alter or change the nature of the suit. The suit is not at the fag end of trial. Having noticed the same, they filed the subject interlocutory application, which was allowed by the Court below. The amendment sought would not alter or change the nature of the suit. The suit is not at the fag end of trial. Moreover, as rightly held by the Court below, allowing the petition to amend the written statement would not amount to allowing the case of the respondents 1 and 2/defendants 13 and 14. The subject suit is required to be determined on merits, after due trial. Further, the respondents 1 and 2 herein/defendants 13 and 14 should be given an opportunity to putforth all the defences available to them in the subject suit for partition and separate possession. The power to grant amendment to pleadings is intended to serve the needs of justice and is not governed by any narrow or technical limitations, as held by the Apex Court in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon { AIR 1969 SC 1267 }. The Court below had assigned number of reasons in allowing the subject interlocutory application. The Court below neither exceeded its jurisdiction nor committed any illegality in passing the order under challenge. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.