ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur[High Court] by the impugned judgment and order dated 17th March, 2023 has allowed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution[Writ Petition No. 5596 of 2021] presented by the first respondent (fourth defendant in the civil suit) by setting aside an order dated 7th July, 2020 passed by the trial court, whereby an application for amendment of the plaint[Amendment Application] under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure[CPC] of the appellants was allowed. An application was filed by the appellants seeking review of the said judgment and order which, however, was rejected by an order dated 21st April, 2023. These orders of the High Court are under challenge in these appeals. 3. It is not in dispute that even on the date of institution of the suit, out of which these appeals arise, the appellants were aware of the fact that the first respondent was in possession of the suit property, and that although they prayed for declaration of rights in respect of such property as well as for cancellation of a particular sale deed, they omitted to seek the relief of possession. There were other minor omissions and printing errors in the plaint, which the appellants sought to set right. This triggered the amendment application, which was granted by the trial court. However, the High Court accepted the claim of the first respondent firstly by proceeding on the bare terms of Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC. It held that since the trial had commenced and the appellants having failed to satisfy the court as to why the amendment was not sought before commencement of the trial, the amendment should have been disallowed by the trial court. The High Court further referred to the cross-examination of PW-1 and reasoned that since possession of the suit property by the first respondent had been admitted by PW-1, such an admission could not be permitted to be withdrawn. The High Court was also of the view that allowing the prayer for amendment would result in permitting the appellants to raise a time-barred plea. In review, it was contended that admission, if any, was not sought to be withdrawn by the proposed amendment and that the High Court had proceeded on an incorrect premise. The High Court was also of the view that allowing the prayer for amendment would result in permitting the appellants to raise a time-barred plea. In review, it was contended that admission, if any, was not sought to be withdrawn by the proposed amendment and that the High Court had proceeded on an incorrect premise. However, such contention did not find favour with the High Court. 4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as considering their social status (they are all tribals), we are inclined to the view that the High Court ought not to have, in the interest of justice, tinkered with the exercise of discretion by the trial court in favour of the appellants notwithstanding the fact that the suit had progressed to the stage of recording of the evidence of the appellants. Importantly, the amendment proposed by the appellants did not have the effect of changing the nature and character of the suit. Also, if allowing the amendment were to cause any serious prejudice to the first respondent, his interest could have been protected by making appropriate observation. 5. In such view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the order of the trial court is restored. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court with the result that the order of the trial court stands restored. 6. It is clarified that this order should not be read as permitting the appellants to raise a time-barred claim. The question of limitation, if any, in institution of the civil suit shall be decided independently by the trial court. 7. The amended plaint be filed by the appellants before the trial court within a period of four weeks from date. The additional written statement may be filed by the respondents within a further period of three weeks of receipt of the amended plaint. 8. The trial court is encouraged to conclude the proceedings of the suit as early as possible, subject to its convenience. 9. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed on the aforesaid terms. 10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.