JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 08.07.2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-V, Dhanbad in T.S. No. 65 of 2008 whereby the amendment application filed by the plaintiffs/respondents under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) has been allowed. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that plaintiffs/respondents filed T.S. No. 65 of 2008 for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit property and also for recovery of possessions of the same. It was claimed in the suit that the plaintiffs/respondents purchased the land from one Amulya Ratan Chakraborty appertaining to plot no. 933, khata no. 24 by way of registered sale deeds which were rectified by the deeds of rectification nos. 4065 and 4066 as plot number and khata number were not correct in the original sale deeds and the land which they possess at present were shown to have situated in the north side of the land of one Jaganath Mukherjee but actually, the land in question is situated in the east side of the land of Jaganath Mukherjee. 3. The petitioner/defendant appeared in the said suit and filed her written statement stating that the said suit was not maintainable as till the death of the plaintiffs’ vendor, the said issue was not raised by them. The plaintiffs/respondents filed an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking several amendments in the plaint. The petitioner/defendant filed reply to the said application and stated that she had no objection to the amendment application except the amendments as sought in paragraphs 5 (e) and (f) of the amendment application claiming that the same would change the nature and character of the suit. The learned court below vide order dated 25.01.2012 allowed the proposed amendment. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 909 of 2012 which was allowed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.05.2018 and the matter was remanded back to the court below. Thereafter, the court below after hearing the parties afresh, passed the impugned order dated 08.07.2019 and allowed the amendment application preferred by the plaintiffs/respondents. 4. Thereafter, the court below after hearing the parties afresh, passed the impugned order dated 08.07.2019 and allowed the amendment application preferred by the plaintiffs/respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by allowing the amendment application of the plaintiffs/respondents, the nature of the case has been affected as the entire case of the plaintiffs/respondents regarding the possession of the land in question by them would change. It is further submitted that the learned court below has committed material irregularity in passing the impugned order. It is a settled law that once a fact has been admitted by a party in the suit, the same cannot be permitted to be changed. The case of the plaintiffs/respondents is that there was no land delivered to the plaintiffs/respondents through the registered sale deeds. The learned court below has misdirected itself by allowing the amendment application preferred by the plaintiffs/respondents as by the said amendment, the nature and character of the suit will change and the fact which has been admitted by the plaintiffs/respondents in the plaint, has been ignored. 5. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the trial of the suit has not yet commenced, as such the proposed amendment was rightly allowed by the court below. It is further submitted that the proposed amendment is formal in nature and the same will not change the nature of the suit. The proposed amendment was necessary to clarify the existing pleading so far as the same relates to the confusion created due to the mistakes in the boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds of the plaintiffs/respondents. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proposed amendment will change the nature and character of the suit and as such the same ought not to have been allowed by the court below. 8. Before coming to the merit of the case, it would be relevant to quote the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC as well as to consider the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the scope and extent of allowing an amendment application. 8. Before coming to the merit of the case, it would be relevant to quote the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC as well as to consider the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the scope and extent of allowing an amendment application. “Order VI Rule 17–Amendment of pleadings.—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading 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.” 9. It would thus be evident that the court has the power to allow an application for amendment at any stage of the suit which is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. However, by way of proviso, some restrictions have been put in such cases where amendment applications are filed after commencement of the trial. Thus, the stages of the cases have been divided in two parts so as to deal with the amendment application- first is before the commencement of trial wherein an application for amendment may be allowed by the court to determine the real issue in controversy and the second is after the commencement of the trial where while considering the amendment application, the court is required to be satisfied that the party seeking amendment has duly explained that in spite of due diligence, he/she could not raise the matter before commencement of the trial. 10. In the case of Varun Pahwa Vs. Renu Chaudhary reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 300, the Hon’ble Supreme court has held as under:- “9. The memo of parties is thus clearly inadvertent mistake on the part of the counsel who drafted the plaint. Such inadvertent mistake cannot be refused to be corrected when the mistake is apparent from the reading of the plaint. The Rules of Procedure are handmaid of justice and cannot defeat the substantive rights of the parties. The memo of parties is thus clearly inadvertent mistake on the part of the counsel who drafted the plaint. Such inadvertent mistake cannot be refused to be corrected when the mistake is apparent from the reading of the plaint. The Rules of Procedure are handmaid of justice and cannot defeat the substantive rights of the parties. It is well settled that amendment in the pleadings cannot be refused merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of Procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleadings even if a party is negligent or careless as the power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations. In State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Company Limited, this Court held as under:— “17. Insofar as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) is concerned, Order 6 Rule 17 provides for amendment of pleadings. It says that 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. 18. The matters relating to amendment of pleadings have come up for consideration before the courts from time to time. As far back as in 1884 in Clarapede & Co. v. Commercial Union Assn. - an appeal that came up before the Court of Appeal, Brett M.R. stated: “… The rule of conduct of the court in such a case is that, however negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however late the proposed amendment, the amendment should be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. There is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs; but, if the amendment will put them into such a position that they must be injured, it ought not to be made….” 19. There is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs; but, if the amendment will put them into such a position that they must be injured, it ought not to be made….” 19. In Charan Das v. Amir Khan the Privy Council exposited the legal position that although power of a Court to amend the plaint in a suit should not as a rule be exercised where the effect is to take away from the defendant a legal right which has accrued to him by lapse of time, yet there are cases in which that consideration is outweighed by the special circumstances of the case. ********* 22. In Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal this Court was concerned with a matter wherein amendment in the plaint was refused on the ground that the amendment could not take effect retrospectively and on the date of the amendment the action was barred by the law of limitation. It was held: (SCC p.871, para 5) “5. …. Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of procedure. The court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a 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 may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side.” This Court further stated (Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal case, SCC p.873, para 7): “7. …The power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations.” 11. Coming back to the present case, the plaintiffs/respondents while praying for amendment in the plaint before the court below, have stated that after rectification of plot number and khata number of two sale deeds, it was found that the boundaries of the land in the said sale deed were also wrongly mentioned. By taking the advantage of the said mistake, the petitioner purchased the land which were already sold to the plaintiffs/respondents. By taking the advantage of the said mistake, the petitioner purchased the land which were already sold to the plaintiffs/respondents. It was further pleaded in the application that presently the plaintiffs are in possession of a vacant land belonging to Bihar Institute of Technology under misconception that they are possessing the correct land. 12. Learned court below while allowing the plaintiffs’ application for amendment has observed that the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit and it would not introduce a completely different and inconsistent case. It has also been observed that the said amendment is not going to take away the legal right of the defendants and it will not cause prejudice to her. The court below while allowing the amendment application has also imposed a cost of Rs.500/- on the plaintiffs/respondents. 13. I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 08.07.2019 passed by the court below in T.S. No. 65 of 2008. The amendment in question appears to be necessary for determining the real controversy involved in the suit. The proposed amendment does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner since all these facts would be proved by the plaintiffs/respondents in the trial and the petitioner will get opportunity to controvert the same by leading appropriate evidence. Since the trial is yet to commence, while deciding the application of amendment, the court below is not supposed to go into such intricate issue. It is well settled that the amendment sought by either of the parties, which is necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the suit, is required to be allowed. 14. Hence, the present writ petition having no merit is accordingly dismissed.