JUDGMENT : By way of present Civil Miscellaneous Petition, the plaintiff-petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 13.07.2022, passed by learned Civil Judge, Sr. Div.-XIV, Ranchi in Civil Misc. Application No. 301 of 2022, arising out of Original Suit No. 125 of 2012, whereby the learned Court below has illegally and erroneously rejected the petition filed by the plaintiff under Order-VI Rule-17 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking leave of the Court to amend the plaint in order to incorporate subsequent fact occasioned during the pendency of the above suit. 2. It has been submitted by Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner that the plaintiff-petitioner has filed Title Suit No. 125 of 2012 against the defendants-respondents praying therein a decree of specific performance of the agreement dated 16.03.2009, in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. Subsequently, the nomenclature of the said title suit has been converted into Original Suit No. 125 of 2012. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the defendants-respondents executed a written agreement dated 16.03.2009 in favour of plaintiff-petitioner for sale of lands measuring 8 kathas 73/4 chataks along with building situated over M.S. Plot No. 1582, R.S. Plot No. 201 of Khata No. 52 under Khewat No. 2, situated within Ward No. II of Ranchi Municipal Corporation at Upper Bazar, Ranchi, and the plaintiff-petitioner paid a total sum of Rs.25,50,000/- as advance for the purchase of said property. It is further submitted that the defendant Nos. 3 to 5 and 9 to 16 have filed separate joint written statement and they have admitted the execution of the written agreement dated 16.03.2009 in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit property and also admitted the payment of advance amount of Rs.25,50,000/-. 4. However, during the pendency of the above suit, the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.5,11,000/- to defendant No. 4 through cheque and cash and as such, the plaintiff filed an application being Civil Misc. Application No. 301 of 2022, under Order-VI Rule-17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking leave of the Court to amend the plaint in order to incorporate the subsequent fact occasioned during the pendency of the above suit. The defendants filed rejoinder to the said application stating therein that the application filed by the plaintiff is not at all maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The defendants filed rejoinder to the said application stating therein that the application filed by the plaintiff is not at all maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The learned Court below without properly considering the materials on record and the relevant provisions of law has illegally rejected the petition being Civil Misc. Application No. 301 of 2022 filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff-petitioner has knocked the door of this Court. 5. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that the proposed amendment is very much necessary for real adjudication of the lis between the parties and the same would not cause any prejudice to the defendants. Learned counsel further argues that the learned Court below has misconstrued the provisions contained in Order VI Rule 17 CPC while rejecting the petition filed by the plaintiff for grant of leave to amend the plaint in order to incorporate subsequent fact occasioned during the pendency of the suit. Learned counsel further argues that the proposed amendment is subsequent fact relating to payment of part consideration amount to the defendants during the pendency of the above suit and the impugned order rejecting the amendment application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner is wholly perverse and the same is against the mandate of law. Learned counsel further argues that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of suit or the same would cause any prejudice to the defendants. Learned counsel further argues that it is settled mandate of law that evidence beyond pleading cannot be admitted in evidence nor the same would be considered while adjudicating the lis, the impugned order passed by learned Court below rejecting the application for plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on the ground that subsequent payment of consideration amount can be adduced in evidence is wholly perverse and the same is against the principles of Order VI Rule 2 CPC and the same amounts to grave miscarriage of justice. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Hemant Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6 to 8 submits that though the amendment is formal in nature but it is the stage of the proceeding which comes into picture. Learned counsel further argues that the amount which is being paid is as per the whims and caprice of the Appellant. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Hemant Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6 to 8 submits that though the amendment is formal in nature but it is the stage of the proceeding which comes into picture. Learned counsel further argues that the amount which is being paid is as per the whims and caprice of the Appellant. Learned counsel further argues that suit is at framing of issues, so at this stage the amendment is not allowed and the C.M.P. is fit to be dismissed outrightly. 7. Having gone through the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. 8. The main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proposed amendment will not change the nature and character of the suit and as such the same ought to have been allowed by the Court below. 9. Before coming to the merit of the case, it would be relevant to quote the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC as well as to consider the judicial pronouncements made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the scope and extent of allowing an amendment application : “Order VI Rule 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.” 10. It would thus be evident that the court has the power to allow an application for amendment at any stage of the suit which is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. However, by way of proviso, some restrictions have been put in such cases where amendment applications are filed after commencement of the trial. However, by way of proviso, some restrictions have been put in such cases where amendment applications are filed after commencement of the trial. Thus, the stages of the cases have been divided in two parts so as to deal with the amendment application- first is before the commencement of trial wherein an application for amendment may be allowed by the court to determine the real issue in controversy and the second is after the commencement of the trial, where while considering the amendment application, the court is required to be satisfied that the party seeking amendment has duly explained that in spite of due diligence, he/she could not raise the matter before commencement of the trial. 11. In the case of Varun Pahwa Vs. Renu Chaudhary, reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 300, the Hon’ble Supreme court has held as under:- “9. The memo of parties is thus clearly inadvertent mistake on the part of the counsel who drafted the plaint. Such inadvertent mistake cannot be refused to be corrected when the mistake is apparent from the reading of the plaint. The Rules of Procedure are handmaid of justice and cannot defeat the substantive rights of the parties. It is well settled that amendment in the pleadings cannot be refused merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of Procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleadings even if a party is negligent or careless as the power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations. In State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Company Limited, this Court held as under:— “17. Insofar as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) is concerned, Order 6 Rule 17 provides for amendment of pleadings. It says that the court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings 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. 18. The matters relating to amendment of pleadings have come up for consideration before the courts from time to time. As far back as in 1884 in Clarapede & Co. v. Commercial Union Assn. 18. The matters relating to amendment of pleadings have come up for consideration before the courts from time to time. As far back as in 1884 in Clarapede & Co. v. Commercial Union Assn. - an appeal that came up before the Court of Appeal, Brett M.R. stated: “… The rule of conduct of the court in such a case is that, however negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however late the proposed amendment, the amendment should be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side. There is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs; but, if the amendment will put them into such a position that they must be injured, it ought not to be made….” 19. In Charan Das v. Amir Khan the Privy Council exposited the legal position that although power of a Court to amend the plaint in a suit should not as a rule be exercised where the effect is to take away from the defendant a legal right which has accrued to him by lapse of time, yet there are cases in which that consideration is outweighed by the special circumstances of the case. ********* 22. In Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal this Court was concerned with a matter wherein amendment in the plaint was refused on the ground that the amendment could not take effect retrospectively and on the date of the amendment the action was barred by the law of limitation. It was held: (SCC p.871, para 5) “5. …. Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the Rules of procedure. The court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder, he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side.” This Court further stated (Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal case, SCC p.873, para 7): “7. However negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and, however late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side.” This Court further stated (Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal case, SCC p.873, para 7): “7. …The power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and is not governed by any such narrow or technical limitations.” 12. From perusal of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it is clear that while deciding the application for amendment, ordinarily the Court must not refused bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendment and should never permit mala fide and dishonest amendments. The purpose and object of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. Amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances, but the Courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hyper-technical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly, in cases where the other side can be compensated with costs. Normally, amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigations. 13. In the instant case, during the pendency of the Original Suit No. 125 of 2012, the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.5,11,000/- to defendant No. 4 and hence, filed an application being Civil Misc. Application No. 301 of 2022 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking leave of the Court to amend the plaint in order to incorporate the subsequent fact occasioned during the pendency of the above suit. By the present amendment, the plaintiff furnished the details of subsequent part payment of consideration amount and as such, there is no inconsistency and the amendment sought for is not barred by limitation. 14. As a sequitur to the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines and legal propositions, the order dated 13.07.2022, passed by learned Civil Judge, Sr. Div.-XIV, Ranchi in Civil Misc. Application No. 301 of 2022 arising out of Original Suit No. 125 of 2012, is hereby quashed and set aside. The learned Court below is directed to allow the plaintiff-petitioner to make amendment as per the averments made in Civil Misc. Application No. 301 of 2022, filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. 15. Application No. 301 of 2022 arising out of Original Suit No. 125 of 2012, is hereby quashed and set aside. The learned Court below is directed to allow the plaintiff-petitioner to make amendment as per the averments made in Civil Misc. Application No. 301 of 2022, filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. 15. Resultantly, the instant C.M.P. No. 525 of 2022 stands allowed. 16. I.A. No. 5885 of 2023 also stands closed.