JUDGMENT : Heard Mrs. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondent although the name of the counsels have been duly reflected in the cause list. 2. This revision petition has been preferred by the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 275/2014 pending in the court of learned Munsiff No. 2, Karimganj being aggrieved by the order dated 08-06-2015 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 61/2015 rejecting the application filed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking leave to amend the plaint. 3. The five petitioners, who are plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 275/2014, are related to each others being sisters and they have jointly instituted the above title suit against the their brother, i.e. the defendant No. 1 and the State of Assam and its officials as defendant Nos. 2 and 3, seeking a decree for partition, declaration of their shares in the ancestral property and for declaration of separate possession along with other consequential relief(s). The respondent No. 1/ defendant No. 1 has entered appearance and contested the suit by filing his written statement. After the issues were framed, the suit was fixed for ADR/ plaintiffs witness. At that stage, an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed by the petitioners seeking leave to amend the plaint. 4. According to the petitioners, the defendant No. 1 in his written statement has mentioned that he and his brother Arup Kumar Saha (since deceased) had purchased land measuring 0.09 Acre within the area of schedule land of the suit and that the suit land is still recorded in the name of the father of the plaintiffs Avinash Chandra Saha. Stating that the plaintiffs had no knowledge of such transaction but became aware of the same only after receipt of the written statement, the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed praying for amending the plaint by permitting the plaintiff to insert paragraph 11(a) to 11(f) and also to amend the schedule of the plaint in the manner mentioned in the said application. 5. The learned Trial Court was of the view that the facts sought to be inserted by way of amendment were well within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and that allowing the amendments at this stage would change the nature and character of the suit. 5. The learned Trial Court was of the view that the facts sought to be inserted by way of amendment were well within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and that allowing the amendments at this stage would change the nature and character of the suit. Hence, by the order dated 08-06-2015 the prayer made under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was rejected. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order dated 08-06-2015, inter alia, by contending that the learned Trial Court had failed to consider that the facts narrated in paragraph 17 of the written statement were within the exclusive knowledge of the defendant No. 1 and therefore, the plaintiffs did not have any knowledge of the same prior to the filing of the written statement. The learned counsel further submits that allowing the amendment was necessary for determining the real question in controversy by and between the parties and therefore, the learned Trial Court has committed an error by rejecting the prayer made by the petitioners. Urging that the prayer for amendment was made before commencement of the trial, inasmuch as, the plaintiffs side had not adduced any evidence in the suit till that stage, Mrs. Choudhury submits that the prayer ought to have received a more liberal consideration from the learned Trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 08-06-2015 and also prayed for granting leave to the petitioners to amend the pleadings in the plaint. In support of her aforesaid arguments, Ms. Choudhury has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Sampath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu & Anr. reported in (2002) 7 SCC 559 and Baldev Singh & Ors. Vs. Manohar Singh & Anr. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 498 . 7. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also perused the LCR summoned in connection with the present proceeding. 8. As noted above, the amendments sought by the plaintiffs were with a view to respond to the plea raised by the defendant No. 1 in the written statement regarding purchase of a part of the suit land, which fact, according to the plaintiffs, came to their knowledge only after the written statement was filed. 8. As noted above, the amendments sought by the plaintiffs were with a view to respond to the plea raised by the defendant No. 1 in the written statement regarding purchase of a part of the suit land, which fact, according to the plaintiffs, came to their knowledge only after the written statement was filed. There is nothing on record to indicate that the aforesaid fact was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs prior to the filing of the written statement by the defendant No. 1. From the nature of amendment sought for by the plaintiffs, it appears that the amendments pertain to the claim of the defendant No. 1 as regards purchase of a part of the suit land. Since the plaintiffs are claiming partition of the ancestral property and declaration of their share and/ or separate possession over the suit land, the claim of the defendant No. 1 of having purchased a part of the suit land along with his deceased brother, would undoubtedly form the basis of the contentious issues arising for decision in the suit. Therefore, unless the said controversy is properly addressed by the learned Trial Court, not only will the real issues remain unresolved in the suit but it may also lead to multiplicity of legal proceedings. Therefore, I am unable to agree with the view of the learned Trial Court that the amendment sought for would amount to altering the nature and character of the suit. 9. In the case of Baldev Singh (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the question as to whether, in view of the proviso of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, amendment of pleadings can be allowed after the commencement of the trial in the suit. Answering the said question the Apex Court had made the following observations in paragraph 17 : “Before we part with this order, we may also notice that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC provides that amendment of pleadings shall not be allowed when the trial of the suit has already commenced. For this reason, we have examined the records and find that, in fact, the trial has not yet commenced. It appears from the records that the parties have yet to file their documentary evidence in the suit. For this reason, we have examined the records and find that, in fact, the trial has not yet commenced. It appears from the records that the parties have yet to file their documentary evidence in the suit. From the record, it also appears that the suit was not on the verge of conclusion as found by the High Court and the trial court. That apart, commencement of trial as used in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 in the Code of Civil Procedure must be understood in the limited sense as meaning the final hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of arguments. As noted hereinbefore, parties are yet to file their documents, we do not find any reason to reject the application for amendment of the written statement in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC which confers wide power and unfettered discretion to the court to allow an amendment of the written statement at any stage of the proceedings.” 10. From the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, it is clear that in a suit where that parties are yet to file their documents or have yet to adduce evidence, the prayer of amendment of pleadings can be considered at the discretion of the court. Having regard to the fact that the plaintiffs have yet to adduce evidence in the suit and in view of the nature of amendments sought for, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was not correct in rejecting the prayer by issuing the impugned order dated 08-06-2015. For the reasons stated above, the order dated 08-06-2015 stands set aside. The leave sought for by the plaintiffs to amendment of the plaint in terms of the prayer made in their application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC stands allowed. Within 15 days from today the amended plaint be brought on record by serving advance copy upon the defendants’ counsel. Registry to send back the LCR expeditiously. No order as to cost.