JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner (original plaintiff) has challenged the order dated 01.02.2020 passed by learned 17th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur whereby an application for amendment of plaint (Exh. 140) under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short “the Code”) has been rejected. 3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration, specific performance of contract and possession, permanent injunction and for cancellation of sale deed dated 31.01.2007 executed and registered in favour of defendant No.2 to 11 by defendant No.1. It may be noted here that the suit land which is subject matter of the agreement and in respect of which specific performance of contract is sought is survey No.176, Mouza Sitabaldi having area 0.55 HR (1.33 Acres). 4. According to petitioner/plaintiff, defendant Nos.12 and 13 filed their written statement on 19.11.2012 without any documents. They filed documents only on 28.11.2017, the details of which are given in application (Exh.-140). One of the document is certified copy of schedule-1. It is further the grievance of petitioner/plaintiff that all these documents were directly exhibited in the evidence and it is only after exhibition of document, namely, certified copy of scheduled-1 (Exh. 107), he started thorough search from the office of Sub-Registrar, Joint Charity Commissioner, Nagpur and Mumbai and Revenue Department to ascertain the exact facts. 5. According to petitioner/plaintiff after making an inquiry, it revealed that the suit land is not the same which is claimed by defendant Nos. 12 and 13 and is entirely different. In this back ground, petitioner/plaintiff wanted to amend the plaint to insert the basic history of suit land on the basis of material documents and to assists in deciding the main controversy in dispute. 6. The above said application was opposed by defendant Nos. 12 and 13. According to them, the proposed amendment had absolutely no relevance for the purpose of instant suit which is one for specific performance of the contract. By way of the proposed amendment, the plaintiff intended to change the nature of the suit as to one for title, which is totally impermissible. More over, the instant suit is for limited purpose of deciding the issue pertaining to allege agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. By way of the proposed amendment, the plaintiff intended to change the nature of the suit as to one for title, which is totally impermissible. More over, the instant suit is for limited purpose of deciding the issue pertaining to allege agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Thus, for all these reasons, the application is not tenable under the provisions of order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. 7. Shri A.K. Waghmare, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited my attention to the impugned order and would submit that the defendant Nos. 12 and 13 had not filed the relevant documents at the time of filing of written statement and for the first time filed those documents on record and that too during the course of evidence and claimed owners of the suit land. It is only when after receipt of said documents, the petitioner/plaintiff started search of the basic history of the claim made by defendant nos.12 and 13 and found that their claim was not matching with the suit property. In as much as, the suit property is different than the property which is claimed by defendant Nos. 12 and 13. By way of proposed amendment, the petitioner/plaintiff only wanted to give explanation as to the nature of property which in any case would not have changed the nature of the suit and was rather essential for determination of controversy between the parties. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Judge wrongly rejected the application and therefore the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside and application (140) deserves to be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance in the following citations which are as under:- Rameshkumar Agrawal vs. Rajmala Exports Private Limited and others (2012) 5 SCC 337 , Abdul Rehman and another vs. Mohd. Ruldu and others, (2012) 11 SCC 341 ; Baldev Singh and others vs. Manohar Singh and another (2006) 6 SCC 498 ; M/s Chakreshwari Construction Private Limited vs. Manohar Lal, 2017 (3) Scale. 8. Shri Masood Shareef, Advocate for respondent No.13, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions by supporting the impugned order. According to learned counsel there being no merit in the petition, the same is liable to be dismissed with costs. 8. Shri Masood Shareef, Advocate for respondent No.13, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the submissions by supporting the impugned order. According to learned counsel there being no merit in the petition, the same is liable to be dismissed with costs. Learned counsel also placed reliance Vidyabai and others vs. Padmalatha and another (2009) 2 SCC 409 , Vijay Hathising Shah and another vs. Gitaben Parshottamdas Mukhi and others 2019 (6) Mh.L.J. and Pandit Malhari Mahale vs. Monika Pandit Mahale and others (2020) 11 SCC 549 . 9. I have carefully gone through the judgments relied on by learned counsel for the parties. All the judgments reflect the basic principles lying behind the order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. In Abdul Rehman and another Vs. Mohd. Ruldu and others (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:- “10. Before considering the factual details and the materials placed by the appellants praying for amendment of their plaint, it is useful to refer Order 6 Rule 17 which is an under:- 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.” It is clear that parties to the suit are permitted to bring forward amendment of their pleadings at any stage of the proceeding for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between them. The courts have to be liberal in accepting the same, if the same is made prior to the commencement of the trial. If such application is made after the commencement of the trial, in that event, the court has to arrive at a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” 10. In Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha and another (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court held that Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code is couched in a mandatory form. In Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha and another (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court held that Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code is couched in a mandatory form. Unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment of the plaint. The court’s jurisdiction to allow such an application is taken away unless the conditions precedent therefore are satisfied viz., it must come to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. From the order passed by the trial Judge, it is evident that the respondents had not been able to fulfill the said precondition. 11. Similarly in Vijay Hathisingh Shah and another Vs. Gitaben Parshottamdas Mukhi and others (supra) it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that trial in suit was almost over and case was fixed for final arguments and relief of amendment was sought belatedly. Still suit could be decided even without there being any necessity to seek any amendment in the plaint as amendment in the plaint was not really required for determination of issues in suit and therefore, the amendment was not allowed. 12. After having gone through the material on record, I am of the firm view that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed for two reasons. 13. First, admittedly the suit is for specific performance of contract in respect of specific property namely suit land bearing survey No.176 of Mouza Sitabardi, having area 0.55 HR (1.33 acres). Thus, the plaintiff has come with a specific case with specific details of the suit land regarding which various reliefs are sought. It is also pertinent to note from the application (Exh. 140) of plaintiff that the suit property in respect of which plaintiff and defendant No.1 had made an agreement is the different property and not the property as claimed by the defendant Nos.12 and 13. It is also pertinent to note from the application (Exh. 140) of plaintiff that the suit property in respect of which plaintiff and defendant No.1 had made an agreement is the different property and not the property as claimed by the defendant Nos.12 and 13. Thus, the plaintiff is very much clear in his mind when he says that the suit land and the ownership of the land as claimed by defendant Nos.12 and 13 are entirely different i.e. to say the suit land in respect of which suit has been filed is entirely different than the ownership of land which is claimed by defendant Nos. 12 and 13. This being so, I do not find the necessity of giving any further explanation, as is sought by plaintiff, and which in reality is not necessary for determination of the plaintiff suit for specific performance of contract. 14. Second, the petitioner/plaintiff has raised grievance that the defendant Nos. 12 and 13 had not filed any documents at the time of filing of written statement and it is only during the course of recording of the evidence all the documents came to be exhibited including the document namely certified copy of scheduled 1 issued by the office of Joint Charity Commissioner and in respect of which the petitioner/plaintiff carried out the search. It is not the case of petitioner/plaintiff that no opportunity was given to him before admission of those documents on record nor that despite objection raised at the time of recording of evidence, his objections were wrongly over ruled and the said document i.e. scheduled 1 (Exh. 107) was exhibited. Even the impugned order does not show any such thing. On the contrary, there are observations of the learned trial Judge at paragraph 5 which shows that the nature of amendment sought to be carried out was not such which could not have been raised by the plaintiff before the commencement of trial. 15. One more thing which is required to be borne in mind and is not disputed is that not only the evidence in the matter had been recorded fully but the matter was also once argued before the learned predecessor of the learned Judge who passed the impugned order. To this effect, again there is observation of the learned trial Judge in the same is at paragraph No.5. 16. To this effect, again there is observation of the learned trial Judge in the same is at paragraph No.5. 16. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find merit in the writ petition. Hence the following order:- ORDER : (i) The Writ Petition is dismissed. (ii) Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.