ORDER : 1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff calling in question the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Budhni, District Sehore in RCSA No.11/2021, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of the plaint has been rejected. 2. The essential facts, in brief, are that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Budhni seeking the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction in relation to certain immovable property situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Court. In the plaint, the petitioner set out the factual foundation upon which the reliefs were claimed. 3. The respondents/defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement denying the material averments of the plaint and asserting their own claims and defences. The written statement was filed approximately two years prior to the filing of the present amendment application. 4. During the pendency of the proceedings, and before commencement of the stage of recording evidence, the petitioner moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC praying for amendment of the plaint. The proposed amendment was confined to insertion of certain additional facts in paragraphs 10 and 13 of the plaint, which according to the petitioner were material for a complete and effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 5. The petitioner asserted that the proposed amendment neither changes the nature of the suit nor introduces a new cause of action, but is intended only to bring on record certain relevant facts which were inadvertently not incorporated earlier. It was further stated that the omission was bonafide and that the amendment would assist the Court in determining the real controversy. 6. The respondents did not file a written reply to the said application, but opposed the same orally before the trial Court. It was urged on their behalf that the petitioner had full knowledge of the facts at the time of filing of the suit, and that the belated application filed after two years from the date of filing of the written statement was an attempt to delay the proceedings. 7. It was urged on their behalf that the petitioner had full knowledge of the facts at the time of filing of the suit, and that the belated application filed after two years from the date of filing of the written statement was an attempt to delay the proceedings. 7. The trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 18.07.2024, rejected the amendment application primarily on the ground that it had been filed belatedly and that no sufficient reason had been assigned for not moving such application earlier. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has adopted a hyper-technical approach and has failed to appreciate that the object of Order VI Rule 17 CPC is to enable the Court to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties. It is contended that the trial had not commenced at the time of filing of the amendment application and, therefore, the rigorous of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 are not attracted. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84 , Vidyabai v. Padmalatha, (2009) 2 SCC 409 and LIC v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128, to contend that delay alone cannot be a ground for rejecting an amendment application, particularly where the amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy and does not cause prejudice to the opposite party. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the plaintiff had every opportunity to include the facts sought to be incorporated by way of amendment at the time of filing of the plaint, and that permitting such amendment at this belated stage would reward negligence and lack of due diligence. It is urged that such an approach would defeat the intent of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which places a premium on promptness in bringing forth all relevant pleas. 10. I have considered the rival submissions and have carefully perused the record. At this juncture, before proceeding to the merits of the case, it is imperative to discuss the law relating to the amendments of pleadings. 11. Order VI Rule 17 CPC, as is well-known, pertains to the amendment of pleadings in a civil suit. It reads as under :- “17. At this juncture, before proceeding to the merits of the case, it is imperative to discuss the law relating to the amendments of pleadings. 11. Order VI Rule 17 CPC, as is well-known, pertains to the amendment of pleadings in a civil suit. It reads 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.” 12. That it can be understood from a reading of the above provision that: (a) amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage; (b) amendment must be necessary to determine the “real question of controversy” “inter se parties” (c) if such amendment is sought to be brought after commencement of trial the Court must, in allowing the same come to a conclusion that in spite of best efforts on the part of the party to the suit, the same could not have been brought before the point of time, when it was actually brought. 13. The Apex Court in case of Dinesh Goyal vs. Suman Aggarwal, 2024 INSC 726 has discussed the law relating to the present quandary which is as follows:- 11.1. The settled rule is that the Courts should adopt a liberal approach in granting leave to amend pleadings, however, the same cannot be in contravention of the statutory boundaries placed on such power. In North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das it was held as under: “16. In so far as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In so far as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil [ AIR 1957 SC 363 ] which still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions : (a) of not working injustice to the other side and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs. 11.2 Over the years, through numerous judicial precedents certain factors have been outlined for the application of Order VI Rule 17. Recently, the Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr after considering numerous precedents in regard to the amendment of pleadings, culled out certain principles:- (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 of the CPC. (ii) In the following scenario such applications should be ordinarily allowed if the amendment is for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided it does not result in injustice to the other side. (iii) Amendments, while generally should be allowed, the same should be disallowed if- (a) 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. (b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations) (c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit; (d) The prayer for amendment is malafide, (e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence. (b) The amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in the divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations) (c) The amendment completely changes the nature of the suit; (d) The prayer for amendment is malafide, (e) By the amendment, the other side should not lose a valid defence. (iv) Some general principles to be kept in mind are – (I) The court should avoid a hyper-technical approach; ordinarily be liberal, especially when the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (II) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint or introduce an additional or a new approach. (III) The amendment should not change the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint. 14. Order VI Rule 17 CPC authorises the Court to permit amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings if such amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The proviso thereto places a limitation that once the trial has commenced, no amendment shall be allowed unless the Court is satisfied that, in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. 15. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized, in the authorities cited above, that the power to allow amendment is wide and should ordinarily be exercised in furtherance of the cause of justice, to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to ensure that disputes are adjudicated upon their real merits. Delay, while a relevant factor, is not by itself a ground to refuse an amendment, especially where the other side can be compensated by costs and no irreparable prejudice would be caused. 16. The apex Court in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India versus Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Anr. has also summarized principles which are as follows : 70. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: (i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC the cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC the cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This is mandatory, as is apparent from the use of the word “shall” in the for amendment is to be allowed if the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, and (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 and (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). (iv) 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, (iii) the prayer for amendment is malafide, or (iv) by the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. (v) 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. (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 should 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) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. (x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint,ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed. (xi) Where the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the court is required to be liberal in its approach. The court is required to bear in mind the fact that the opposite party would have a chance to meet the case set up in amendment. As such, where the amendment does not result in irreparable prejudice to the opposite party, or divest the opposite party of an advantage which it had secured as a result of an admission by the party seeking amendment, the amendment is required to be allowed. Equally, where the amendment is necessary for the court to effectively adjudicate on the main issues in controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. (See Vijay Gupta v. Gagninder Kr. Gandhi & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1897). 17. In the present case, the record reveals that the amendment application was moved at a stage when the trial had not yet commenced, the suit being still at the stage preceding the recording of evidence. In such a situation, the statutory bar engrafted in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is not attracted, and the petitioner is not required to satisfy the test of “due diligence” applicable after commencement of trial. The proposed amendment is integrally connected to the cause of action already pleaded; it merely seeks to place on record additional facts that form part of the same transaction and are germane to the issues already arising in the suit. There is no introduction of a wholly new or inconsistent cause of action, nor is there any alteration in the fundamental nature or character of the suit. Rather, the amendment would assist the Court in having a more comprehensive and accurate factual matrix before it at the time of adjudication, thereby furthering the object of Order VI Rule 17 CPC to enable decision on the real dispute between the parties. 18. Rather, the amendment would assist the Court in having a more comprehensive and accurate factual matrix before it at the time of adjudication, thereby furthering the object of Order VI Rule 17 CPC to enable decision on the real dispute between the parties. 18. It is also of significance that the respondents have not placed on record any material to show that they would be subjected to such prejudice by reason of the amendment which cannot be compensated by an award of appropriate costs. The nature of the amendment is such that the respondents will have full opportunity to meet the additional pleadings by way of a consequential amendment in their written statement and, if necessary, by leading evidence thereon. The settled legal position, as enunciated in the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is that where prejudice can be offset by costs and opportunity to rebut, denial of an otherwise necessary amendment would amount to sacrificing substantive justice at the altar of procedural rigidity. Refusal in such cases would also risk compelling the petitioner to initiate independent proceedings to agitate the omitted facts, thereby leading to multiplicity of litigation, waste of judicial time, and avoidable expenses to both sides. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, and upon a considered evaluation of the rival submissions in the light of the settled legal principles, this Court is of the opinion that the rejection of the petitioner’s amendment application solely on the ground of delay does not withstand judicial scrutiny. The guiding consideration under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is whether the amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, and not merely the lapse of time between the filing of the written statement and the application for amendment. The trial in the present matter has not yet commenced, thereby rendering inapplicable the statutory restriction contained in the proviso to Rule 17. 20. It is further observed that no irreparable prejudice, incapable of being compensated by an award of costs and grant of consequential opportunity, has been demonstrated by the respondents. On the contrary, the nature of the amendment is such that it would facilitate a complete and effective adjudication of the dispute and obviate the need for multiplicity of proceedings. 20. It is further observed that no irreparable prejudice, incapable of being compensated by an award of costs and grant of consequential opportunity, has been demonstrated by the respondents. On the contrary, the nature of the amendment is such that it would facilitate a complete and effective adjudication of the dispute and obviate the need for multiplicity of proceedings. Denial of such an amendment would, in effect, defeat the legislative purpose underlying Order VI Rule 17 CPC and compel piecemeal litigation, which is contrary to the interests of substantive justice. These considerations, taken cumulatively, constitute sound and cogent reasons for allowing the amendment notwithstanding the delay of approximately two years in moving the application. 21. In view of the above discussion, the petition deserves to be allowed. The impugned order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Budhni in RCSA No. 11/2021 is hereby set aside. The application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is allowed, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondents within thirty days from today. 22. Upon payment of the aforesaid costs, the trial Court shall direct the plaintiff to carry out the amendment and proceed with the suit in accordance with law, endeavouring to decide the same expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments.