JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 03.06.2023 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.4/2022 arising out of Civil Appeal No.20/2018 by learned District Judge-I, Latehar whereby the learned court has been pleased to reject the petition of the petitioner filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. 3. Mr. Ramawatar Choubey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in Title Suit and they have instituted Title Suit No.35 of 2010 for declaration of right, title and interest in favour of the plaintiffs over the suit land and further declaration that the plaintiffs shall have no binding effect of the incorrect entry in the R.S. record of right. He submits that on notice, respondent/defendant no.3 namely Menonite Mission has appeared and filed written statement in the suit whereas the defendant no.3 claimed 8.48 acres of land in question and defendant no.2 was Forest Department had also filed written statement, but, not participated in the trial. He submits that after the argument of both the sides the learned court has been pleased to pronounce the judgment by the judgment dated 12.4.2018 partly allowing the suit and partly dismissing the same. He then submits that against that judgment, the plaintiffs have preferred civil appeal being Civil Appeal No.20 of 2018. 4. He submits that in the appeal an amendment petition was filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for clarifying that the correct new khata number and plot number that is, new Khata No.98 and R.S. Plot No.259 has been created from old C.S. Khata No.18 and C.S. Plot No.195 and 196 and 5.43 acres of land of the plaintiffs have been included. He submits that the said amendment is formal in nature and in spite of that the same was allowed by the learned first appellate court. 5. He submits that the said amendment is formal in nature and in spite of that the same was allowed by the learned first appellate court. 5. He submits that subsequently the case has been transferred to another court wherein another application was filed being Civil Application No.4 of 2022 praying therein to add the in the prayer portion for direction to the revenue authority to correct the wrong entry and or to create the new khata number of the plot in question which has been rejected by the learned court by the order dated 3.6.2023. He submits that the said prayer was formal and in spite of that the learned court has been pleased to reject the same and in view of that, the said order may kindly be set aside. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that the second amendment was filed belatedly and the learned court has rightly passed the said order. 7. It is an admitted position that the said suit was decided by the judgment dated 12.04.2018 and partly the prayer of the petitioners was allowed. The Appeal No.20 of 2018 was preferred. In appeal, the petitioners have preferred application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC dated 22.7.2019 which was allowed by the order dated 18.2.2020 and thereafter the plaintiffs filed the second amendment petition praying therein to add that in the new Survey Record of rights, that is, R.S. Khatiyan where R.S. Khata No.98 R.S. Plot 259 measuring area of 5.43 acres have been included may kindly be declared void, illegal and without any basis and further be pleased to cancel and set aside the same and further be pleased to direct the defendant no.1 competent authority to correct the new record of rights or to create new khata number and plot number equal to the area of the suit property as mentioned in the schedules the basis of which with the sole record of rights. 8. 8. Admittedly, the Order VI Rule 17 CPC empowers the court to allow the amendment of the pleadings at any stage of the proceeding in order to determine the real question in controversy between the parties with a rider 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 parties sought for amendment could not have raised the same before commencement of trial. A reading of the application seeking amendment to disclose the lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioners in seeking the amendment and there is no jurisdictional error in rejecting the prayer for amendment requiring interference in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldeo Singh and Others v. Manohar Singh and Others reported in (2006) 6 SCC 498 has held that the amendment of plaint and amendment of written statement are not to be weighed in the same analogy. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that adding a new ground of defense of substituting, adding or altering a new cause of action does not raise the same as adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action holding that the court has wider power to allow the amendment of pleadings in such manner and in such terms as it appears to the court to be just and proper but what has been discussed hereinabove in the case in hand, the entire khata number and area have been sought to be changed that too at the appellate stage and earlier an amendment petition was allowed and after such a belated stage such petition has been filed and in view of that the learned court has been pleased to dismiss the same. 9. The Court finds that if such a petition is allowed, it will change the nature of the entire suit, and as such, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated03.06.2023 and hence, C.M.P. No.1151 of 2023 is dismissed. 10. Pending petition if any also stands dismissed accordingly.