JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1 and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside of the order dated 24.08.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-I at Ranchi in Misc. Civil Application No.916 of 2024 arising out of Original Suit No.12 of 2014 whereby the petition filed for amendment has been rejected by the learned Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs/petitioners instituted the Original Suit No.12 of 2014 for declaration that the defendant No.1 has only right to live in the house situated over suit land/property along with her unmarried female children, being the widow of predeceased son of one of the recorded tribal tenants, coming from Oraon community of Chhotanagpur and she has no right to alienate any part of the suit land property in favour of any one in view of customary law of “Oraons” of Chhotanagpur or to any way command upon plaintiffs to vacate the half of the suit land/property in absentia any process of law or to any way disturb the peaceful possession of plaintiffs over suit land/property either personally or through police personnels in absentia process of law. He submits that the said suit has been proceeded and the witnesses of both the sides have been examined and the matters have reached at the stage of argument and at that stage a petition under Order VI Rule 17 has been filed which has been rejected by the learned Court. He submits that the amendment was only with regard to Column-4 of the Khatian that the said land was granted to the two recorded tenants as per oral settlement by the tenure holder for twelve years only and on elapse of said period the said land was taken back by the tenure holder of khewat No.6 of the village and the same was subsequently gifted exclusively to Etwa Oraon and his family members by a registered deed of Gift No.3378 of the year 1950. He submits that the said was formal amendment in spite of that the learned Court has been pleased to reject the same which may kindly be allowed. 4. He submits that the said was formal amendment in spite of that the learned Court has been pleased to reject the same which may kindly be allowed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1 opposes the prayer and submits that the learned Court has rightly passed the said order as the entire nature of the suit has been tried to change by way of filing the said amendment petition and in view of that the learned Court has rightly passed the order. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 – Deputy Commissioner submits that the learned Court has rightly passed the order and there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. It is an admitted position that the suit was instituted praying therein that subsequent to adjudication of the suit a decree of declaration be given that the defendant No.1 has only right to live in the house situated over the suit land/property along with her unmarried female children, being the widow of predeceased son of one of the recorded tribal tenants, coming from Oraon community of Chhotanagpur and she has no right to alienate any part of the suit land property in favour of any one in view of customary law of “oraons” of Chhotanagpur or to any way command upon plaintiffs to vacate the half of the suit land/property, in absentia any process of law or to any way disturb the peaceful possession of plaintiffs over suit land/property either personally or through police personnels in absentia process of law. The suit has proceeded and issues have been framed and both the sides, plaintiffs and defendants have examined their witnesses and the case has reached at the stage of argument and at belated stage, the said petition was filed which has been rejected by the learned Court. 7. Order VI Rule 17 has been recently considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1128 wherein it has been held as under:- (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. 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. (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. 8. By way of the amendment, what is sought to be done, that is required to be examined. By way of the amendment on the basis of the gift deed of 1950, the pleading was tried to be changed that too at the state of final argument and the suit was otherwise which clearly suggests that if that petition is allowed the entire nature of the suit will change and in that view of the matter the learned Court has rightly passed the said order. Further due diligence is not shown. There is no illegality in the impugned order, as such this petition is dismissed.