JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 18.03.2024 passed in Civil Misc. No.01 of 2021 arising out of Original Suit No.216 of 2019/Title Suit No.114 of 2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) at Bokaro whereby the petition dated18.02.2021 filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed with cost of Rs.1,000/-. 3. Mr. Arpan Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the subject matter of land appertaining to Mouza Tetulia, Khata No.22, Plot No.80 and 81, Anchal Chas, Thana No.13, admeasuring 10 decimals, purchased by the petitioner No.1 who is wife of petitioner No.2 from Indu Shankar Prasad Singh, son of Late Bindeshwari Prasad Verma vide Sale Deed No.11634/10176 on 17.10.2011 which was also mutated in the name of petitioner No.1 in Revenue Record and petitioner No.1 also paying rent to the State Government and after the execution of sale deed the petitioners have continuous possession in the land in question. He further submits that respondent No.1 instituted Original Suit No.216 of 2019 (arising out of the Title Suit No.114 of 2014) before learned Court for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to hold and enjoy the suit proper described in Schedule of the plaint and for recovery of possession in the suit property. He submits that the trial has proceeded and later on the petition has been filed for amendment in the plaint to challenge the Sale Deed No.10176 dated 17.10.2011. He submits that the learned court has been pleased to allow the same which amounts to change the nature of the suit itself and in view of that the said order is not in accordance with law and that may kindly be set aside. 4. He submits that the learned court has been pleased to allow the same which amounts to change the nature of the suit itself and in view of that the said order is not in accordance with law and that may kindly be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 draws the attention of the Court to the plaint and submits that in the Schedule, the Plot No.1112 (One Thousand One Hundred Twelve) corresponding to Survey Khata No.22, Plot No.81 is the subject matter of the suit property and the said land is coming within the said plot and it has been later on come to the knowledge that the said land has been purchased by the petitioner herein and in view of that the said prayer of amendment was made and that has been allowed by the learned Court and there is no illegality in the order. 5. Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC speaks of amendment of the plaint. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC provides 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. 6. Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC prevents an application for amendment after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence the party could not have raised the issue. The burden is on the party seeking amendment after commencement of trial to show that in spite of due diligence such amendment could not be sought earlier. 7. The key factors to be taken into consideration by the Court while dealing with an application for amendment, inter alia, are whether the amendment would cause prejudice to the other side or it fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case or a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred on the date of filing the application. 8. 8. What has been discussed here-in-above, it has come that the said land is arising out of the Plot Nos.80 and 81 that is the subject matter and by the sale deed it has been purchased and if such a situation is there it amounts to a formal amendment and it is further in the interest of justice of all the parties that all the issues be decided to avoid the multiplicity of the litigation in one suit with regard to the subject matter of the suit property. 9. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order, however the rebuttal right is required to be provided to the petitioner, as such this petition is dismissed with liberty that the plaintiff/defendant will have right of the rebuttal so far the amendment is required.