JUDGMENT : 1. The instant writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing of the order dated 03.05.2013 passed in Title Suit No. 42 of 2006 by which the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC has been rejected wherein amendment has been sought for to the extent for granting leave to the petitioner who is plaintiff to the suit for deleting from the detail of the schedule property the Plot No. 112/154 Bari II 0.65 acres as under Schedule 1-A at page-13 of the plaint. 2. Such amendment has been sought for on the ground that the present partition suit relates to the land of separate dakhal kiyari recorded in the name of Sohan Maraiya and others and not for partition for any Ejmal land i.e., Plot No. 112/154 Bari IInd Class Area 0.65 acre of mouza Tilona and Plot No. 408 Bari IInd Class are 0.25 acre of mouza Khairiodih. 3. It has been contended by referring to Annexure-6 appended to the supplementary affidavit dated 02.02.2016 which is the copy of the plaint wherein it has been pleaded as under paragraphs-6, 7 and 8 that for the property in question, a separate partition suit is going on being Title Partition Suit No. 19 of 1998, therefore, amendment has been necessitated since for the said part of the plot which has been inserted in Schedule of the plaint, if allowed to remain there, the same will be not judicious. 4. Objection to the said petition has been filed by the defendant before the trial court raising objection to the effect that such amendment has been sought for only when the same has been pointed out by the defendants in the written statement. 5. The trial court has considered the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 dated 03.01.2013 and has rejected the same by passing the order on 03.05.2013(impugned) on the ground that if such amendment will be allowed, the same will change the nature of the suit, which is the subject matter of question in this writ petition to be looked into its legality and propriety in exercise of revisional power conferred to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. 6. There is no dispute that the amendment sought for under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC is to be allowed even at the belated stage if the same is substantially required for the ends of justice depending upon the applicable condition under the provision of Order VI Rule 17. However, it appears from the impugned order that the trial court has referred therein that the trial is at the advance stage, i.e., plaintiff’s evidence has already been closed. But, Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid finding is error of record since the case is still at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence. 7. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. 8. Thus, it is apparent that the trial is at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence stage. Even if it is assumed that the plaintiff’s evidence has been closed and if the fact of the given case will be considered then also the amendment, according to the considered view of this Court, is required to be allowed, reason being that it is the admitted case of the parties herein for the property in question which has been sought to be deleted from the schedule of the plaint is already in consideration for partition in Partition Suit No. 19 of 1998 as would appear from paragraphs-6, 7, and 8 of the plaint. 9. The written statement has been filed by the defendants, but the statements made at paragraphs-6, 7 and 8 has not been rebutted rather the said fact has been admitted since the statement has been made that Partition Suit No. 19 of 1998 is still pending for the landed property for which amendment has been sought for to delete it from schedule of the plaint. 10. The said fact has necessitated the plaintiff to file petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and according to the considered view of this Court, the same is a requirement for the ends of justice and for the property in question which is sought to be deleted from the schedule of the plaint is also the subject matter of Partition Suit No. 19 of 1998. 11. 11. The learned trial court has rejected the aforesaid petition merely on the ground that the nature of the suit will be changed, but while coming to such conclusion the trial court has failed to appreciate that if there is any bona fide mistake by insertion of the reference of property being Plot No. 112/154 which is the subject matter of a separate partition suit being Partition Suit No. 19 of 1998, the same ought to have been taken into consideration by the trial court so that there may not be over-lapping decree. 12. This Court is well aware of the scope of the jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is very limited and same is to be exercised only in a case where there is any jurisdictional error or there is error on the face of record or the amendment is necessary for the just and proper adjudication of the lis. 13. Here, in the given facts of the case admittedly, the property which has been sought to be deleted is the subject matter of different partition suit being Partition Suit No. 19 of 1998, therefore, if that led the plaintiff to file a petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC at the stage of evidence, the same ought to have been taken into consideration in right perspective in order to avoid any over-lapping or conflicting decree in the suits. 14. This Court, therefore, considers that the trial court has committed illegality in rejecting the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC merely on the ground that the nature of the suit will change. The question is that how the nature of the suit will change if the part of the property will be deleted which is the subject matter of different partition suit. 15. It is surprising that the trial court has failed to assign any reason that as to how the nature of suit will be changed. The question is that how the nature of the suit will change if the part of the property will be deleted which is the subject matter of different partition suit. 15. It is surprising that the trial court has failed to assign any reason that as to how the nature of suit will be changed. Merely by treating that the said amendment will change the nature of the suit is not sufficient reason and cannot be considered to be proper adjudication as the position of law is settled that if any order is being passed by judicial officer in the judicial side, it is incumbent upon such officer to pass the order by assigning reason, reason means consideration of facts and consideration always means the active application of mind. It is further settled position of law that in absence of any reason, an order cannot be said to be a justified one. 16. This Court, therefore, is of the view that it is a fit case where the power conferred to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised by showing interference with the impugned order. 17. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 03.05.2013 is quashed and set aside. 18. The matter is remitted before the trial court to pass fresh order on the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and proceed with the trial without any unnecessary delay. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. 20. In consequence of the disposal of the instant petition, interim order dated 19.07.2016 stands vacated.