ORDER : T. VINOD KUMAR, J. 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 17.03.2023 in I.A. No. 2365 of 2021 in O.S. No. 110 of 2020 passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, At Medchal. 2. The revision petitioners herein are the Defendants in the main Suit filed by the respondent herein vide O.S. No. 110 of 2020 under Order VII Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 26 of CPC for cancellation of sale deed and are the respondents in the underlying application filed by the respondent/petitioner. 3. The respondent herein had filed an interlocutory application under order VI rule 17 r/w/ section 151 of CPC for amendment of pleadings. 4. The petitioners herein contend that the underlying interlocutory application is neither maintainable in law nor on facts, and has been filed to withdraw prior pleadings and introduce a false and concocted version of events. The petitioners further contend that the respondent herein has willfully concealed material facts, making the proposed amendment unjust and detrimental to the petitioner’s legal rights, as it alters the nature of the suit and the amendment application is filed with malafide intent to overcome the bar of limitation under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. 5. The petitioners also contend that the Trial Court failed to consider that the amendment introduces a new and inconsistent cause of action, thereby altering the very nature and character of the suit. It also amounts to the withdrawal of earlier admissions made in the plaint, which is impermissible in law and causes serious prejudice to the petitioners. 6. The Trial Court upon hearing both sides and on perusal the record, observed that all question of facts such as whether the alleged amended portion is genuine or concocted, and whether there is suppression of material facts by the respondent herein must be decided at the time of trial, not at the stage of deciding the amendment application. 7. The Trial Court further observed that, based on the pleadings of the respondent/petitioner, it cannot be concluded that there is any withdrawal of earlier admissions or pleadings. 7. The Trial Court further observed that, based on the pleadings of the respondent/petitioner, it cannot be concluded that there is any withdrawal of earlier admissions or pleadings. It further held that, while parties are expected to maintain integrity in their pleadings, even if there is an omission or suppression, such lapse alone is not sufficient to reject the amendment application, particularly in view of the principle of substantial justice. 8. The Trial Court observed that, when an amendment is made the key concern is that no injustice should be caused to the other party and held that, in the present case, no such injustice would result from allowing the amendment, as the issues involved are factual and both parties will have equal opportunity to prove or disprove them during trial. In result, the amendment application was allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,500 by the respondent/petitioner to the petitioners/respondents. 9. Heard Sri C. Shanmukha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 10. From a perusal of the underlying Interlocutory application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., before the trial court, the respondent herein has sought for amendment of his plaint pleadings. The proposed amendments sought for are: to add para no. 8(a) and (b) in plaint after para no.8, to add clause (b) and (c) in the valuation column and to add clause (B) in prayer of the plaint. 11. Since, the petition is filed invoking the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC., it is apt to refer to the same, which reads as follows: - 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. It is pertinent to note that in the main suit i.e. in O.S. No. 110 of 2020 the issues are yet to be framed and that the suit was at the stage of filing written statement by the petitioners/respondents, i.e. the main suit is in pre-trial stage. Therefore, by the proposed amendment will not result in changing the nature of the suit as it sought only to insert para no. 8(a) and (b) in plaint, clause (b) and (c) in the valuation column and to add clause (B) in prayer of the plaint. Hence, no great irreparable loss would be caused as the petitioners/respondents would get an opportunity to file written statement and to cross examine the respondent/petitioner. That apart from a perusal of the plaint this Court is of the view that the proposed amendment does not alter the nature of the suit. 13. Further, it is also to be noted that the trial Court while considering an application filed under order VI Rule 17 CPC, has sufficient power to consider such application to shorten the litigation. Thus, the order of the trial Court in allowing the underlying interlocutory application in the considered view of this Court cannot be held as being contrary to the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC or manifestly being in error without sufficient cause. (See: Amritlal N. Shah v. Alla Annapurnamma ', Dinesh Goyal Vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) and Ors). In proper cases the Court has jurisdiction to take note of the subsequent events and grant relief to the parties accordingly, if by so doing it can shorten litigation and serve the ends of justice. 14. The Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Ors , [2022 INSC 896] , while dealing with the amendment of prayer held as follows: “It is well settled that the court must be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment, if the court is of the view that if such amendment is not allowed, a party, who has prayed for such an amendment, shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. It is also equally well settled that there is no absolute Rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation, amendment should not be allowed. It is also equally well settled that there is no absolute Rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation, amendment should not be allowed. It is always open to the court to allow an amendment if it is of the view that allowing of an amendment shall really sub-serve the ultimate cause of justice and avoid further litigation.” 15. In the case of Kisandas Rupchand and Anr. v. Rachappa Vithoba Shilwant and Ors , [ILR (1909) 33 Bom 644] , the Bombay High Court laid down the principles thus: “…. From the imperative character of the last sentence of the rule it seems to me clear that, at any stage of the proceedings, all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions (a) of not working in justice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.” 16. Therefore, the amendments can be refused 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 and the power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may at any stage be appropriately exercised in the interest of justice, the law of limitation notwithstanding. But the exercise of such far-reaching discretionary powers is governed by judicial considerations and wider the discretion, greater ought to be the care and circumspection on the part of the Court. (See: Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar and Ors., (1974) 2 SCC 393 . ) 17. Thus, considered from any angle the order passed by the trial Court allowing the application filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of plaint averments, in the considered opinion of this Court does not alter the nature of the suit and allowing amendment even before the filing of written statement would not have any adverse effect on the defence set up the petitioners/respondents or the relief sought for therein, for being interfered with by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 18. For the above mentioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the order of the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity or error. 19. 18. For the above mentioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the order of the trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity or error. 19. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs.