ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner against the Order and decree, dated 06.01.2020 passed in I.A. No. 240 of 2018 in O.S. No. 72 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in O.S. No. 72 of 2015. The said I.A. No. 240 of 2018 was filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking to amend the plaint. 3. Heard Sri P.V. Raghuram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Balaji Medimalli, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that inadvertently or by mistake he has mentioned in the plaint that cart track passing through Thenepalle village Sy. No. 337/1 which is shown as ABCDEF in village map and the same is shown as “B” schedule instead of cart track passing through the land in Sy. No. 125 Ragala kunta and S. No. 128 of Peta Agraharam and Sy. No. 337/1 and Sy. No. 335/1 village accounts. 5. On the other hand, respondents counsel while denying the averments made in the petition specifically contended that under the guise of amendment he wants to implead the property of this respondent in the “B” schedule after three years of filing of suit for wrongful gain. Further, he has purchased the full extent of property in Sy. Nos. 125, 128/2, 128/1A, 128/1B and 128/3 and in fact there is no such Sy. No. 128 on ground. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendant has acquired the properties from the APIIC for construction of the factory under the name and style Galla Foods Pvt. Ltd. The plaint “A” schedule property is situated towards West of Galla Foods Pvt. Ltd. Further towards West and South of the plaint “A” schedule property, the defendant also acquired the property from APIIC. He further submits that recently, the respondent/defendant has constructed a compound wall on either side of the Road and also trying to close the road leading to the plaint “A” schedule property and the same is shown as “B” schedule in the plaint. Except the plaint “B” schedule road there is no other road to reach the plaint “A” schedule property for ingress and egress. Except the plaint “B” schedule road there is no other road to reach the plaint “A” schedule property for ingress and egress. In the village map it is clearly shown the “B” schedule road and the same is passing through S. No. 125 and 128 and reached to the lands of the plaintiff in S. No. 337/1 and 335/3. The petitioner is filing the village map which may be read as part and parcel of the plaint. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that now the petitioner wanted to include the property of the respondent in the “B” schedule after three years of filing of the suit for wrongful gain. The respondent has purchased the property of Sy. No. 125, 128/2, 128/1A, 18/1B, 128/3 in its full extent in Peta Agraharam village. In fact there is no such Sy. No. 128 on ground now. As it was subdivided long back and sold to the respondent by the Government for consideration and possession as delivered as it is total extents without any encumbrances. It is further stated that there is no such ABCDEF road existing on ground. A commissioner has also inspected the site locality and filed his report long back. The commissioner report with sketch clearly shows that there is no such road on existing as claiming by the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Vijay Gupta vs. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi and Others, 2022 SCC Online Del 1897 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that : “A reading of Order VI Rule 17 reveals the following: (i) The provision uses the word “may” as well as “shall.” They are, however, used in different contexts, and, therefore, no confusion arises as a consequence. The provision states that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow amendment of the pleadings. The use of the word “may” is, in this context, clearly permissive and empowering in nature. It indicates that the Court is empowered, at any stage of the proceedings, to allow amendment of the pleadings. The provision states that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow amendment of the pleadings. The use of the word “may” is, in this context, clearly permissive and empowering in nature. It indicates that the Court is empowered, at any stage of the proceedings, to allow amendment of the pleadings. Additionally, even syntactically, no other word could be used in place of “may” as it is followed with the words “at any stage of the proceedings.” These opening words of Order VI Rule 17, therefore, indicates that amendment of pleadings may be allowed by the Court at any stage of the proceedings. (ii) The use of the word “shall” later in Order VI Rule 17 is, however, imperative and mandatory in nature. The clear intent of the legislature is that all amendments, which satisfy the criteria envisaged by Order VI Rule 17 shall be allowed. (v) It is not open, therefore, for a Court to refuse to allow an amendment which is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties before it. At whatever stage the amendment is sought, it has to be allowed. (This is, of course, subject to the proviso to Order VI Rule 17, to which I shall presently advert) (viii) The circumstances in which a prayer for amendment of pleadings may justifiably be refused are not, therefore, set out in Order VI Rule 17. They have, however, been explained in judicial precedents, over a period of time, to which I would presently allude. 22. Analysing Order VI Rule 17, the Supreme Court in Rajkumar Gurawara vs. S.K. Sarwagi and Co. (P) Ltd. held thus: “13. To put it clear, Order 6 Rule 17 CPC confers jurisdiction on the court to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings on such terms as may be just. Such amendments seeking determination of the real question of the controversy between the parties shall be permitted to be made. Pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial. As rightly pointed out by the High Court in the former case, the opposite party is not prejudiced because he will have an opportunity of meeting the amendment sought to be made. Pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial. As rightly pointed out by the High Court in the former case, the opposite party is not prejudiced because he will have an opportunity of meeting the amendment sought to be made. In the latter case, namely, after the commencement of trial, particularly, after completion of the evidence, the question of prejudice to the opposite party may arise and in such event, it is incumbent on the part of the court to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the proviso.” 31. In the present case, the petitioner has clearly averred, on oath, that the finding of the learned Trial Court, that trial had commenced in the present case, was incorrect, as evidence of the parties had not yet begun, and the petitioner was yet to tender his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. The respondents, in the reply, have not contested this claim. As such, it is apparent that trial had not, in the present case, commenced when the impugned order came to be passed on 22nd October, 2021. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, therefore, has no application in the present case. When the prayer for amendment should and when the prayer for amendment can be allowed. 32. Once it is asserted that the case does not attract the proviso to Order VI Rule 17, the court is thereafter required to examine whether the amendment sought is necessary to determine the real issue in controversy between the parties (being the test expressly stipulated in Order VI Rule 17) and in the event the answer to the said question is in the negative, whether the amendment sought is required to be allowed or rejected on any other ground. These issues juxtapose into one another, and their answers would become apparent if one scans the evolution of the law through decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and other judicial authorities on the point. 33. On a reading of the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court on the scope of ambit of Order VI Rule 17, the following propositions emerged: (i) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. 33. On a reading of the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court on the scope of ambit of Order VI Rule 17, the following propositions emerged: (i) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall” in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17. (ii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed: (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided: (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side. (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side. (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations) (iii) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless: (i) by the amendment, a time barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration. (ii) the amendment changes the nature of the suit, Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal vs. K.K. Modi, (2005) 4 SCC 385, Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil, AIR 1957 SC 363 , Dondapati Narayana Reddy vs. Duggireddy Venkatanarayana Reddy, (2001) 8 SCC 115 , Estrella Rubber vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. (2001) 8 SCC 97 . (iii) the prayer for amendment is mal-afide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. (iv) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hyper-technical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (v) The proscription against allowing an application for amendment, where the amendment results in setting up a time barred claim, is not absolute. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs. Kalgonda Shingonda Patil and Muni Lal vs. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. (v) The proscription against allowing an application for amendment, where the amendment results in setting up a time barred claim, is not absolute. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs. Kalgonda Shingonda Patil and Muni Lal vs. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. it was held that, as the proposed amendment set up a case which, since institution of the suit, had become time barred, it would cause prejudice to rights which vested in the other side, the amendment should not be allowed. At the same time, in L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. vs. Jardine Skinner and Co. the Supreme Court held that the fact that the claim which was sought to be introduced by the amendment was time barred was not an absolute bar and that a time barred claim could also be sought to be introduced by amendment if the court felt it necessary to do so, ex debito justitiae. Punjab National Bank vs. Indian Bank, AIR 2003 SC 2284 , B.K. Narayana Pillai vs. Parameswaran Pillai, AIR 2000 SC 614 . (vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin-pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment was required to be allowed. (vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. (viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. (x) An amendment which results in substitution of one distinct cause of action for another, or in changing the subject matter of the suit, cannot be allowed; else, it can. Certain illustrative examples may be noted thus: In another case reported in M/s Terai Infrastructures Ltd. vs. M/s Robin Commodial Pvt. Ltd and Others, wherein it was held that: 26. In my view Courts have to render substantial justice to the parties to avoid further litigation. Certain illustrative examples may be noted thus: In another case reported in M/s Terai Infrastructures Ltd. vs. M/s Robin Commodial Pvt. Ltd and Others, wherein it was held that: 26. In my view Courts have to render substantial justice to the parties to avoid further litigation. If it is found that by mistake wrong plot numbers as well as J.L. number have been mentioned in the body and the Schedule of the said plaint the Court in order to sub-serve the ends of justice has ample power under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code to rectify such mistake committed inadvertently in the body of the plaint as well as the schedule of the plaint. In another case reported in Sri Narayanamurthy vs. Sri Gopal and Others, W.P. No. 11292 of 2015 dated 5.10.2018 wherein the Karnataka High Court held that: “.......The defendants filed application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of Court Commissioner to report whether any layout is formed therein and whether there is any house construction and if so, whether suit schedule property can be identified in the said layout in respect of the site in question. Even though the application for appointment of Commissioner was filed initially, the same was considered after completion of evidence of the parties. In pursuance of the appointment of Court Commissioner, the Commissioner inspected the spot on 12.01.2013 and submitted his report on 04.02.2013. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 6 on 05.11.2013 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking amendment of plaint to incorporate certain facts and also additional prayer for mandatory injunction and vacant possession of the site, contending that certain developments have taken place during the pendency of the suit and the defendants have made construction on the suit schedule property. The application was opposed by the defendants by filing objection, stating that the amendment sought for will change the nature of the suit and introduces a new cause of action. Further, it is stated that the application is not maintainable when the matter is at the stage of arguments. In another case reported in Ragu Thilak D. John vs. S. Rayappan and Others, (2001) 2 SCC 472 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that: If the aforesaid test is applied in the instant case, the amendment sought could not be declined. In another case reported in Ragu Thilak D. John vs. S. Rayappan and Others, (2001) 2 SCC 472 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that: If the aforesaid test is applied in the instant case, the amendment sought could not be declined. The dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimise the litigation. The plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is arguable in the circumstances of the case, as is evident from the perusal of averments made in Paras 8(a) to 8(f) of the plant which were sought to be incorporated by way of amendment. We feel that in the circumstances of the case the plea of limitation being disputed could be made a subject matter of the issue after allowing the amendment prayed for. In view of the legal position, as noted hereinabove, the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order and permitting the appellant-plaintiff to amend the plaint subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500/-. 9. On a perusal of the above citations, it is clear that under Order VI Rule 17 CPC party should be permitted to amend the pleadings provided trial was not commenced. The very object of Order VI Rule 17 CPC is that with due diligence if parties are prevented from pleading they should only be allowed. The above set of facts are not applicable to be present case. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a case of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Life Insurance Corporation vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 wherein it was held that: (ii) All amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall” in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. (iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed: (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided: (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side. (iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed: (i) if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. (ii) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided: (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side. (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment does not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side. (c) the amendment does not raise a time barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). 11. On hearing, this Court observed that all amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall” in the latter part of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. 12. Admittedly the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S. No. 72 of 2015 against the respondent/defendant for grant of permanent injunction restraining the respondent not to close any cart track to leads the plaint schedule property till the disposal of the suit. After receipt of summons, the respondents have highhandedly closed the exits track and erased the same with the help of JCB. Immediately the petitioner has filed a petition to appoint an advocate commissioner to note down the damage of cart track in the petition schedule property. In the village map a width of 24 feet and ¾ KM length or 4000 feet and the same is shown as “B” schedule in the plaint instead of the cart track passing through the land in Sy. No. 125 of Ragalagunta and Sy. No. 128 of Peta Agraharam village accounts and Sy. No. 337/1 and Sy. No. 335/1 of Thenapalle village accounts with a length of 3/4th KM and the same is shown as ABCDEF in the rough sketch, as per village map the said ABCDEF points is a pathway. 13. It is true that under Order VI Rule 17 CPC party should be permitted to amend the pleadings provided trial was not commenced. Admittedly trial was not commenced in this case. 13. It is true that under Order VI Rule 17 CPC party should be permitted to amend the pleadings provided trial was not commenced. Admittedly trial was not commenced in this case. The very object of Order VI Rule 17 CPC is that with due diligence if parties are prevented from pleading they should only be allowed. But in the present case the contention of the petitioner is that due to inadvertency he pleaded the wrong survey numbers. If at all it is only a bona-fide mistake for one number or so if it can be considered and understood in positive manner. 14. Admittedly, in the present case, it is evident that the petitioner due to inadvertency he pleaded, the wrong survey numbers. If at all it is only a bona-fide mistake for one number or so it can be considered and understood in positive manner. But, the petitioner, in fact introducing a new fact under amendment which changes the entire scenario of the case, since he has sought for not only for correction of survey numbers but also to note that defendants have already closed the way and constructed compound wall and to receive the rough sketch with regard to existence of cart track. If such is the case naturally the petitioner is not entitled for any relief more particularly a relief sought for amendment since it will cause great prejudice to the case of the respondent. 15. In view of the above discussion and legal position, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the Order and decree, dated 06.01.2020 passed in I.A. No. 240 of 2018 in O.S. No. 72 of 2015 by the Court below. 16. Finding no merit in the instant revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.