ORDER 1. Petitioners have filed this miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 24.10.2017 passed in RCS No.A/100773-A/2016 by District Judge, Bhopal (MP). Petitioners were plaintiffs and respondents were defendants before the trial Court (hereinafter petitioners and respondents are referred to as 'plaintiffs' and 'defendants'). 2. Plaintiffs had filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was dismissed by the trial Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for plaintiffs that by proposed amendment plaintiffs want to bring subsequent events on record, therefore, trial Court had committed an error of law in dismissing the application. 4. Learned counsel for the defendants had supported the order passed by the trial Court. It is submitted by them that due diligence clause under proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC has not been satisfied, therefore, there is no error in the order of trial Court and petition may be dismissed. Trial Court had dismissed the application on ground that plaintiffs failed to show that application is filed diligently without delay. 5. Heard the counsel for the parties. 6. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for partition and possession over 1/5 part of the suit property. Plaintiffs and defendants were brother and sister. Madan Lal Agrawal had died intestate. After his death his wife namely Kanti Devi Agrawal also died. During pendency of suit bearing No.728-A/2016, defendants had disclosed about existence of some more ancestral property. By proposed amendment plaintiffs want to make pleadings in respect of said property and also want to change the relief clause to the extent they are entitled over 1/4 share as their mother Kanti Devi Agrawal has died. 7. From going through the fact of the case, it is clear that plaintiffs want to bring subsequent event on record as they had learnt about disclosure of some other property after filing of civil suit. After death of Kanti Devi Agrawal the share of plaintiffs in suit property has been affected. After her death, they will be entitled for 1/4 share instead of 1/5 share. After perusal of application of plaintiffs, it is found that plaintiffs had not mentioned date when they learnt about additional property and date regarding death of Kanti Devi Agrawal is also not mentioned. 8. Proposed amendment will not change nature of civil suit. 9. After her death, they will be entitled for 1/4 share instead of 1/5 share. After perusal of application of plaintiffs, it is found that plaintiffs had not mentioned date when they learnt about additional property and date regarding death of Kanti Devi Agrawal is also not mentioned. 8. Proposed amendment will not change nature of civil suit. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that application has been dismissed on technical ground. In view of same, impugned order is set aside and plaintiffs are given one more opportunity to file fresh application for proposed amendment complying with due diligence clause. After such application is filed by the plaintiffs, trial Court shall consider the said application on merits of the application. 10. With aforesaid direction, miscellaneous petition is disposed off.