ORDER : S.R.Krishna Kumar, J. This petition by the plaintiff in O.S.No.1643/2020 (Old O.S.No.114/2020) is directed against the impugned order dated 24.09.2025 passed on I.A.No.XII by the XI Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short), whereby the said application filed by the respondent – defendant No.2 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC for amendment of the written statement was allowed by the Trial Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. For the order proposed, notice to respondent is dispensed with. 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit seeking for permanent injunction in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit having been contested by the defendants and the trial Court framed issues and the plaintiffs adduced oral and documentary evidence and pursuant to which, respondent – defendants commenced the evidence and at the stage of further examination of PW-1, the respondent filed the instant application seeking permission to amend the written statement by seeking incorporation of additional pleadings in support of their defence. The said application having been opposed by the respondent, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application, by holding as under: “ORDERS ON IA NO.XII This IA is filed when the matter is posted for further chief of DW1. The defendant No.2 has filed this application IA No.12, U/o 6 Rule 17 R/W/S 151 of CPC, seeking for the amendment of written statement, after para No.13 to insert 13(a); by stating following reasons; 1. The schedule property bearing Sy.No.134/1, totally measuring about 2 acre 39 guntas, which is earlier inam land which was granted by the Special Tahasildar, Mysuru, in Masanegowda and Madegowda S/o Kambegowda Dt:17.07.1958 and they have filed a separate application under Rule 7 of Inam Act., and the Special Tahasildar has issued the endorsement Dt:18.10.1960 in the name of Kambegowda and Masanegowda jointly as stated above. 2. The schedule property is not the property of the predecessor of the plaintiffs as contended. 3. 2. The schedule property is not the property of the predecessor of the plaintiffs as contended. 3. The said facts has to be inserted in the pleadings along with the document which was received by the defendants on 02.05.2025 and the said documents are very essential and necessary to state and discard the contention of the plaintiff claim as it is not the own property of the plaintiff and her predecessor. 4. If this application is allowed, it will not change the nature of the suit nor cause of action. 2. The plaintiff No.3 has filed the objection against this application by stating that, 1. The schedule property i.e., land bearing Sy.No.134/1 measuring 2 acre 39 guntas is absolutely belongs to Masanegowda S/o Late Madegowda, he had no male issues and during his lifetime he gifted the portion of schedule property i.e., Sy.No.134/1 measuring 1 acre out of 2 acre 39 guntas and other properties in favour of Smt.Ramamma and her husband Kambegowda on 21.10.1963 and he retain 1 acre 39 guntas in Sy.No.134/1 for his maintenance and after his death, the Ramamma got rights over the above said 1 acre 39 guntas by succession. 2. The Ramamma D/o Madamma and her son Mallesh are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and khatha of the plaint schedule property has been changed in the name of Mallesh S/o Madamma and Kambegowda through MR No.58/2006-07. 3. After the death of said Mallesh, the wife of said Mallesh for change of khatha in respect of plaint schedule property and concerned authority changed the khatha of the schedule property in the name of plaintiff No.3 through MR no.19/2008-09. 4. The defendant No.1 filed OS No.124/2025 on the file of III Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Mysore against the plaintiff No.3 and this suit decreed on 08.01.2018 and the plaintiff No.3 preferred an RA No.52/2018 on the file of 7 th Addl.District Judge, Mysore and the said appeal is came to be allowed and Hon’ble Court be pleased to dismiss the suit of the defendant No.1 and it is cleared that defendant No.1 has no rights over the schedule property. 5. 5. The plaintiff No.3 filed OS No.32/2014 on the file of 3 rd Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru against the defendant No.1 in respect of plaint schedule property and this suit came to dismissed and plaintiff No.3 preferred an RA No.53/2018 on the file of 7 th Addl.District Judge, Mysore and this appeal also dismissed, but there is observation by the Hon’ble District Court that all the LR’s of Smt.Ramamma and Kambegowda are having rights over the schedule property. Hence, prays to dismiss of this application. 3. Heard and perused the materials on record. 4. The following points arise for consideration: 1. Whether the defendant No.2 has made out grounds to allow the application? 2. What order? 5. The findings of this court on the above points are as follows; Point No.1: In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per the final order for the following; REASONS 6. Point No.1: It is apt to note that, Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC., reads as follows; 17. 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. 7. It is settled law that, the amendment of pleadings cannot be claimed by the party as a matter of right nor can be denied by the Court arbitrarily. However, the discretion to be exercised by the Court is guided by the principles mentioned in the provision Order 6 Rule 17 and depends on the facts and circumstance of each case. 8. As such, it is settled law that Order 6 Rule 17 is intended to promote the ends of justice and not for defeating, therefore the grant of amendment is the rule and refusal is the exception. 9. It is settled law that and it is reiterated in catena of judgments that the general principle that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or to substitute the cause of action. 9. It is settled law that and it is reiterated in catena of judgments that the general principle that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or to substitute the cause of action. It has no counter part in the principles relating to amendment of the written statement. Therefore addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence are taking in- consistent pleas in the written statement could not be objectionable while adding come up altering or substituting a new cause of action in the plaint may be objectionable. 10. The object of Rule 17 is to minimize the litigation, minimize the delay and to avoid multiplicity of the suits. Therefore, it has been included to do justice and not to shut out justice merely technicality of the pleadings. 11. The cardinal test for deciding an application for amendment is that; 1. Whether the amendment is necessary for the determination of the real questioning controversy? 2. Whether the amendment be allowed without injustice to other side? If the first condition is satisfied that amendment is necessary to decide the real controversy between the parties, the amendment should be allowed. In other words if there is no necessity to decide the real controversy between the parties amendment should not be allowed. 12. Like the first condition second condition is equally important according to which, no amendment will be allowed which will cause in justice to the opposite party. It is settled law that the amendment can be allowed if it can be made without injustice to other side. But it is also cardinal rule that there is no injustice to other party, if the other side can be compensated by cost. 13. The object of Rule 17 is to minimize the litigation, minimize the delay and avoid multiplicity of suits. Therefore, it has been included to do justice and not do to shut out justice merely on technicality of pleadings. Rule 17 was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.H.Patil Vs K.S.Patil that court should by the merits of the case that come before them and should consequently allow all the amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause in justice or prejudice to other side. 14. Rule 17 was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.H.Patil Vs K.S.Patil that court should by the merits of the case that come before them and should consequently allow all the amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause in justice or prejudice to other side. 14. It is settled law that, amendment can be sought at any stage of the suit and it can be allowed by the Court at any stage subject to proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. 15. After meticulous examination of entire materials on record, the counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently argued that, the amendment sought by the defendant through this application and the earlier pleadings in the written statement are contrary to each other and ambiguous and also the evidence has already commenced in this case and hence, the applications needs to be dismissed. On the other hand, the counsel for the defendant has strenuously contended that, the amendment sought is neither inconsistent nor ambiguous to earlier pleadings and the defendant recently learned about these information i.e., after filing of the written statement and hence, the defendant has filed this application. 16. As discussed supra, the provision Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC., itself discloses that, if party shows the sufficient cause for non inclusion of the averments at the time of filing of the pleadings, then the Court can liberally allow such amendment to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings and to provide an equal opportunity to the parties. After examining the pleadings of both the parties and material placed by both the parties and application filed by the defendant along with the affidavit and objection filed by the plaintiff, it appears that, if this application is not allowed, it may leads to multiplicity of the proceedings and the amendment sought by the defendant through this application seems like neither inconsistent nor ambiguous to earlier pleadings (written statement) and hence, in the interest of justice and equity and in the light of the principles laid by Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, I answer this point No.1 in the Affirmative. 17. 17. Point No.2: In view of the above discussion, this court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER IA No.12 filed by the defendant No.2 under Order 6 Rule 17 R/W/S 151 of CPC., is hereby allowed with cost of Rs.500/-.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the proposed amendment sought to be put forth by the respondents-defendants is contrary to the pleadings by the defendants in other suits between the parties and as such, it was impermissible in law to seek amendment in the present suit. 6. In this context, it is relevant to state that the veracity, validity, legality and correctness of the pleadings of the parties in the present suit including the proposed amendment cannot be considered at the stage of considering an application for amendment. At any rate, the petitioner-plaintiff would have an opportunity to file a rejoinder to the amended written statement filed by the defendants and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners-plaintiffs especially when the impugned order does not contain any illegality or infirmity nor has occasioned failure of justice warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India as held in Radhey Shyam and Ors Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors – (2015) 5 SCC 423 , K.P. Natarajan and Ors. Vs. Muthalammal and Ors – AIR 2021 SC 3443 and Mohd. Ali Vs. V. Jaya – (2022) 10 SCC 477 . 7. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petition may be disposed of without interfering with the impugned order and by issuing certain directions. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby disposed of without interfering with the impugned order. ii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner –plaintiff to file rejoinder/reply to the amended written statement. iii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the parties to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims.