ORDER : Arun Monga, J. 1. Petitioner (plaintiff), inter-alia, seeks quashing of an order dated 06.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate No.9, Jodhpur Metro in Civil Suit No.65/2016, vide which, an application filed by the petitioner (plaintiff) under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the company's address and substitution of the name of the erstwhile authorized signatory with that of the present one in the cause-title, was rejected. 2. The petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction concerning 29 bighas of land in village Gangana, District Jodhpur, along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. Interim relief was granted by the Additional Civil Judge No. 2, Jodhpur Metro on 15.03.2016. The suit was later transferred to the Court of Additional Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate No. 9, Jodhpur Metro. Pleadings were completed with the respondent’s written statement filed on 05.09.2016 and the petitioner’s rejoinder on 18.05.2018, following which six issues were framed on 20.09.2017. In November 2020, the petitioner sought amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to update the company’s registered address and substitute the name of its authorized signatory. The respondent opposed the application, and the trial court, vide order dated 06.05.2025, dismissed the same and closed the petitioner’s evidence, despite the amendment being purely technical and non-prejudicial. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned order and permission to amend the cause title and lead evidence. 3. For ease of reference, English translation (as provided) of the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 reads as follows: “The advocate for the parties is present. Arguments on application under Order 6 Rule 17 were heard. During the arguments, the advocate for the applicant/plaintiff reiterated the facts mentioned in the application and argued that after the filing of the suit, the address and the authorized representative of the applicant company have changed. Therefore, as per clause 3 of the application, permission should be granted to amend the plaint and make consequential amendments regarding the company's address and authorized representative. In contrast, the non-applicant/defendant, while reiterating the facts mentioned in the reply to the application, argued that the applicant has filed this application to remove existing parties and add new ones, which is not legally permissible. In contrast, the non-applicant/defendant, while reiterating the facts mentioned in the reply to the application, argued that the applicant has filed this application to remove existing parties and add new ones, which is not legally permissible. Also, no documents have been submitted in support of the facts mentioned in the application. Hence, the application should be rejected. The arguments were considered. The case file was examined in the context of the application. Through the application, the applicant/plaintiff seeks amendment in the plaint to replace the authorized person of the plaintiff company from Piyush Doli to Jitendra Singhvi and to change the company’s address. Currently, the case was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence before the submission of the present application. According to the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, after the commencement of the trial, an amendment application cannot be allowed unless the court concludes that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The applicant has not clarified when the company’s address changed and when Jitendra Singhvi was appointed as the authorized representative. Also, no supporting documents have been submitted by the applicant in relation to the facts mentioned in the application. Although an affidavit has been filed by Jitendra Singhvi in support of the application, the case file does not contain any authorization letter or any other document from the plaintiff company authorizing Jitendra Singhvi. From all these facts, it does not appear that due diligence was exercised by the plaintiff/applicant. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 filed by the applicant/plaintiff is rejected and dismissed. The case file has been pending since the year 2016 and has been pending for plaintiff’s evidence since 06.10.2017. Till date, no affidavit of evidence has been filed by the plaintiff. In the interest of justice, a final opportunity for plaintiff’s evidence is granted with the condition of automatic closure. The case is fixed for filing of plaintiff's evidence as a final opportunity with the condition of automatic closure on 20.05.25.” 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, I do not deem it necessary to issue notice to the respondents, as no prejudice would be caused to them by the nature of order which I propose to pass. 5. The case is fixed for filing of plaintiff's evidence as a final opportunity with the condition of automatic closure on 20.05.25.” 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, I do not deem it necessary to issue notice to the respondents, as no prejudice would be caused to them by the nature of order which I propose to pass. 5. It transpires that the learned trial Court rather overstretched its opinion that allowing the application at this stage would result in delay of the trial. No doubt, the same would have caused delay, but the same, in any case, would have been detrimental to the petitioner-plaintiff itself, who was seeking the amendment in his plaint. For the delay caused to defendants, same could have been compensated by imposing costs. 6. As regards the nature of amendment is concerned, it transpires that it neither changes the nature of the suit nor, even otherwise, are there any factual amendments being brought out other than the technicality of substitution of the name of authorized representative of the petitioner (plaintiff)-company, coupled with the fact that during pendency of the trial proceedings, the registered addressed of the company has undergone the change. The said amendments are merely technical in nature and, in any case, would not prejudice the defendant in any manner. 7. Having perused the case file and the impugned order, and given the nature of the proposed amendment of the plaint, it seems that the same is necessary for determining the real question/controversy between the parties herein. Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC envisages that the Court may, at any stage of the proceedings, allow either party to alter or amend 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 controversy between the parties. 8. As regards the delay in seeking the amendment, the party opposing the same can be compensated by cost, provided the amendment is otherwise necessary for adjudication of the real controversy. As a general rule, amendment ought not to be denied by learned trial Court, subject of course to the just exceptions, i.e., if the same is not warranted to adjudicate the real controversy and/or it is with an oblique motive or dilatory tactic to delay the proceeding and/or otherwise barred by limitation. 9. As a general rule, amendment ought not to be denied by learned trial Court, subject of course to the just exceptions, i.e., if the same is not warranted to adjudicate the real controversy and/or it is with an oblique motive or dilatory tactic to delay the proceeding and/or otherwise barred by limitation. 9. The learned trial Court completely lost sight of the aforesaid position while dismissing the amendment application, which is neither barred by limitation nor otherwise untenable on merits, for the reasons already stated hereinabove. 10. In the premise, the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 is set aside. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of plaint is allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the defendants and petitioner (plaintiff) shall be granted one last opportunity to adduce additional evidence, if any. However, the trial Court shall be at liberty to adjourn the matter at its own discretion depending upon its work exigency. The trial shall proceed from the stage at which it was fixed prior to the passing of the impugned order. 11. Allowed as above. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of