ORDER 1. Petitioner defendant has filed this miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 18-03-2021 passed by Sixth Civil Judge Class-II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.41-A of 2017 whereby the application filed by respondent- plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been allowed. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that respondent- plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner- defendant pleading that a four-strayed building was in his ownership and possession situated at Khasgi Bazar Chaurah, Lashkar and he had purchased the said property from Rambabu Khendelwal and others vide sale deed dated 01-09-1991. During pendency of the suit, he also filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for proposed amendment in the pleadings and the same has been allowed by the trial Court. Hence, this petition. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner- defendant that the trial Court has erred in passing the impugned order dated 18-03-2021 whereby the application filed by plaintiff- respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been wrongly allowed. The aforesaid application was filed by the plaintiff at belated stage and proposed amendment made by plaintiff in the pleadings is beyond the scope of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC as the nature of case will change by allowing the amendment application and a new cause of action may arise by allowing the same. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned order. In support of contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vidyabai and Others vs. Padmalatha and Others reported in AIR 2009 SC 1433 . 4. Counsel for the respondent - plaintiff opposed the contention of petitioner and submitted that the trial Court has rightly allowed the proposed amendment application and no jurisdictional error has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the proposed amendment application which is permissible under the law. In support of contention, he has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohanlal & Others vs. Shravan Kumar & Others, reported in 2016(3) MPLJ 507 . 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. In support of contention, he has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohanlal & Others vs. Shravan Kumar & Others, reported in 2016(3) MPLJ 507 . 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. On bare reading of provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC as well as on perusal of documents available on record, it is apparent that the proposed amendment of pleadings is necessary for determining real question of controversy between the parties. Primary object behind the amendment of pleadings is to protect the rights of the party and not to punish for the mistake made by him or her in the pleadings. Purpose of provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is to promote the ends of justice and not to defect law. Provisions related to proposed amendment of pleadings gives power to the Civil Court to allow the parties to alter, amend or modify pleadings at any stage of proceedings. Amendment of pleadings should also help the parties to correct the mistakes or errors in the pleadings. 7. In the present case, the trial Court by its impugned order has allowed the application filed by the plaintiff- respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC whereby due to some clerical mistake and to incorporate the same by way of proposed amendment in regard to closing of two windows at second floor of the suit property in question during the pendency of suit. As aforesaid proposed amendment has been made under changed circumstances, therefore, no jurisdictional error has been committed by trial Court while allowing the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. Accordingly, petition being devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.