ORDER : 1. The respondent in the present Civil Revision Petition filed O.S. No. 11 of 2023 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Parvatipuram, for declaration of title over the plaint schedule property, which is RCC slabbed house with two floors, two shops and appurtenant vacant site, situated in Ward No. 3, Block No. 13 situated by the side of the road leading to Vantaram village with Door No. 13-112/113/114 in Sy. No. 355/2 and another RCC slabbed building with appurtenant vacant site with Door No. 13-109 with an assessment No. 1642 in the same survey number. Unnecessary details are shorn off. 2. The revision petitioners-defendants filed their written statement in the said suit denying the plaint averments and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. Be that as it may, the respondent in the present revision, who is the plaintiff in the suit, filed I.A. No. 118 of 2024 under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. for amendment of plaint schedule by adding item No. 3 in the schedule as “the lands situated in Mettavalasa village, Bobbili Mandal, situated in Sy. No. 43/11 which is an extent of Acs.2.02 cents dry land” and consequently to amend Para IV in 9th line after the date 12.07.2023 “when the defendants field a counter alleging that they obtained an unregistered Will from mother of plaintiff on 10.02.2023” and to amend Para V of the plaint schedule, the value of the Court fee in the 6th line starting after paid under as “the value of Item No. 3 is Rs.30,03,000/- and 3/4th market value is Rs.22,52,250/- and Court fee of Rs.14,026/- is paid.” So also, the total Court fee is to be amended as Rs.2,63,452/- Para VI of the plaint in the 2nd line of sub-para (a) after schedule properties “the Will dated 10.02.2023 is not valid and binding on the plaintiff.” 4. The present I.A. No. 118 of 2024 was filed by the plaintiff (respondent in the present revision) alleging that they came to know about the Will dated 10.02.2023, which is said to be executed in favour of the defendants, after filing of the counter/ written statement in the suit. Therefore, it is necessary to add the lands situated in Mettavalasa village, Bobbili Mandal in Sy. No. 43/11 which is an extent of Acs.2.02 cents dry land as item No. 3 in the plaint schedule property. Therefore, it is necessary to add the lands situated in Mettavalasa village, Bobbili Mandal in Sy. No. 43/11 which is an extent of Acs.2.02 cents dry land as item No. 3 in the plaint schedule property. 5. The revision petitioners-defendants filed their counter in the said I.A. and denied the averments in said I.A. and asserted that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right under all circumstances and the said amendment will give rise new cause of action. 6. The learned trial Judge allowed the I.A. observing that the amendment will not cause prejudice to both parties; to come to conclusion that allowing the petition to amend the plaint will be useful to determine the fact in issue and also will be useful to determine the rights of the parties over the schedule property as well as property added by virtue of this amendment to the plaint schedule property to avoid multiplicity of litigation. 7. The said impugned order is assailed in the present Civil Revision Petition on the grounds that the amendment that it is necessary does not cause injustice or prejudice to other party and the Will dated 10.02.2023 is not valid Will and the amendment petition is not maintainable without filing rejoinder. 8. It is imperative to extract Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. as it now exists is as follows: 17. Amendment of Pleadings - 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: 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. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others v. K.K. Modi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 385 had occasion to consider and interpret Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. in which following has been held: “15. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others v. K.K. Modi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 385 had occasion to consider and interpret Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. in which following has been held: “15. The object of the rule is that the courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side.” 10. In the case of Abdul Rehman and Another v. Mohd. Ruldu and Others, (2012) 11 SCC 341 while dealing with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph Nos. 10 and 11 that: “Before considering the factual details and the materials placed by the appellants praying for amendment of their plaint, it is useful to refer Order VI, Rule 17 which is as under: “17. Amendment of pleadings: 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: 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.” It is clear that parties to the suit are permitted to bring forward amendment of their pleadings at any stage of the proceeding for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between them. The Courts have to be liberal in accepting the same, if the same is made prior to the commencement of the trial. If such application is made after the commencement of the trial, in that event, the Court has to arrive at a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 11. If such application is made after the commencement of the trial, in that event, the Court has to arrive at a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 11. In case of Mohinder Kumar Mehra v. Roop Rani Mehra and Others, (2018) 2 SCC 132 while dealing with the provision under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that: “The judgment on which much reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant is Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Others v. K.K. Modi and Others, (2006) 4 SCC 385 Apex Court had occasion to consider and interpret Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in paragraphs 15, 16, 17 and 18, in which following: “15. The object of the rule is that the courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. 16. Order 6 Rule 17 consists of two parts. Whereas the first part is discretionary (may) and leaves it to the court to order amendment of pleading. The second part is imperative (shall) and enjoins the court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties.” 17. Although Order VI Rule 17 permits amendment in the pleadings “at any stage of the proceedings”, but a limitation has been engrafted by means of Proviso to the fact that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial is commenced. Reserving the Court’s jurisdiction to order for permitting the party to amend pleading on being satisfied that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In a suit when trial commences? Order XVIII of the C.P.C. deal with “Hearing of the Suit and Examination of Witnesses.” Issues are framed under Order XIV. At the first hearing of the suit, the Court after reading the plaint and written statement and after examination under Rule 1 of Order XIV is to frame issues. In a suit when trial commences? Order XVIII of the C.P.C. deal with “Hearing of the Suit and Examination of Witnesses.” Issues are framed under Order XIV. At the first hearing of the suit, the Court after reading the plaint and written statement and after examination under Rule 1 of Order XIV is to frame issues. Order XV deals with “Disposal of the Suit at the first hearing” when it appears that the parties are not in issue of any question of law or a fact. After issues are framed and case is fixed for hearing and the party having right to begin is to produce his evidence, the trial of suit commences. 18. Apex Court in Vidyabai and Others v. Padmalatha and Another, (2009) 2 SCC 409 held that filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the witnesses amounts to commencement of proceedings. In Paragraph 11 of the judgment, following has been held: “11. From the order passed by the learned trial Judge, it is evident that the respondents had not been able to fulfill the said precondition. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is as to whether the trial had commenced or not. In our opinion, it did. The date on which the issues are framed is the date of first hearing. Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure envisage taking of various steps at different stages of the proceeding. Filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the witness, in our opinion, would amount to “commencement of proceeding.” 12. Whether the plaintiff had any right or not in the property, and whether the claim is barred by limitation were all the questions which have to be decided on adducing evidence in the final adjudication, and it would be decided after considering the evidence and not at the stage of considering the amendment in the facts of the present case. 13. When it is specifically questioned to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners the stage of the suit, it was replied that the trial of the suit had not yet commenced and issues have to be framed. Technically the suit is in pre-trial stage. 13. When it is specifically questioned to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners the stage of the suit, it was replied that the trial of the suit had not yet commenced and issues have to be framed. Technically the suit is in pre-trial stage. The trial has not yet commenced and the amendment of plaint can be allowed on the anvil of Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. The learned trial Judge has not committed any wrong while allowing the petition and the present revision petition is devoid of merit to exercise power vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as this Court didn’t see any perversity or unjust in the order to interdict with it. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case, shall stand closed.