ORDER : S.R. Krishna Kumar, J. This petition by the defendant in O.S.No.697/2023 on the file of the VI Additional Civil Judge and VII JMFC, Tumakuru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short) is directed against the impugned order passed in I.A.No.III, whereby the said application filed by the respondent – plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint 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 respondent – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner – defendant for temporary injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit having been contested by the defendant, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and at the stage of further cross examination in chief, the respondent – plaintiff filed the instant application seeking amendment of plaint by seeking the prayer of declaration of the title together with pleadings in this regard. The said application having been opposed by the defendant, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order on I.A.No.III by holding as under: “ORDER ON I.A. NO. III UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE This is the application filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief permit him to amend the plaint as stated in the proposed amendment application, in the interest of justice and equity. PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS SOUGHT FOR (1) After para No.1 of the plaint insert the following paras. 1(a) Originally the land bearing Sy.No. 125 measuring about 4 acres 33 guntas and land bearing Sy.No.126 masuring about 4 acres 04 guntas totally measuring about 7 acres 0- 07 which are abutting to each other situated at Hullenahalli Village, Gulur Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk belongs to one Thimmegowda son of Thimmegowda. After the death of said Thimmegowda son of Thimmegowda his sons namely (1) First son Kenchaiah @ Ajjaiah, (2) Second son Kenchaiah and mother Kenchaiah @ Helavaiah died his minor sons Bhairamma, as their natural guardian. (3) Third son Gangalah through their Thimmappalah. (4) Fifth son Gangalah, (5) Sixth son Thimmegowda. Have divided all their family properties through a Registered Partition deed dated 05.11.1964. The fourth son of Thimmegowda son of Thimmegowda i.e.. (3) Third son Gangalah through their Thimmappalah. (4) Fifth son Gangalah, (5) Sixth son Thimmegowda. Have divided all their family properties through a Registered Partition deed dated 05.11.1964. The fourth son of Thimmegowda son of Thimmegowda i.e.. Thimmalah had already about 8 years back of partition deed had taken his share and residing separately with his family members. In that partition deed the sons of Thimmegowda son of Thimmegowda have jointly divided both the lands by allotting. (a) 2-00 acres of land in both Sy.No.125 and 126 for the share of first son Kenchaiah Ajjalah. (b) 1-00 acre of land in both Sy.No. 125 and 126 for the share of second son Kenchaiah @ Helavaiah died his minor sons Kenchaiah and Gangalah through their mother Bhairamma, as their natural guardian. (c) 1-00 acre of land in both Sy.No.125 and 126 for the share of third son Thimmappaiah. (d) 1-00 acre of land in both Sy.No. 125 and 126 for the share of the fifth son Gangaiah. (e) 2-00 acre 07 guntas of land in both Sy.No. 125 and 126 for the share of sixth son Thimmegowda. 1(b) Later the sixth son of Thimmegowda i.e.. Thimmega had sold 1 acre 04 guntas of land in Sy. No. 125 and 1 acre 03 guntas of land in Sy.No.126 10 the possession of the same was delivered to the purchaser on H.Kempaiah uner a Registered Sale Deed dated 27.12.1969 same day itself. Subsequently H.Kempaiah had sold land of 1 acre 04 gunt in Sv. No. 125 to his wife Puttahanumakka under a Registered S Deed dated 26.07.1971 and later on dated 12.12.1972 boo Puttahanumakka and her husband H.Kenchalah have jointly s 1 acre 04 guntas of land in Sy.No.125 and 1 acre 03 guntas land in Sy.No. 126 to one Veerabhadraiah son of Rudrajah under Registered Sale Deed. On date 14.03.1973. 1 acre 04 guntas of land in Sy.No.125 and 1 acre 03 guntas of land in Sy.No. 125 and 1 acre 03 guntas land in Sy.No.126 was given to his wife Lingamma wife Veerabhadraiah. On date 14.03.1973. 1 acre 04 guntas of land in Sy.No.125 and 1 acre 03 guntas of land in Sy.No. 125 and 1 acre 03 guntas land in Sy.No.126 was given to his wife Lingamma wife Veerabhadraiah. 1(c) On the other hand the one Thimmappaiah, the third son of Thimmegowda and his sons, had sold his share of property 1-00 acre of land in both Sv.No.125 and 126 obtained in the Registered Partition Deed dated 05.11.1964 to Veerabhadraiah son of Rudraiah under a Registered Sale Deed dated 12.06.1975 and later Veerabhadraiah had sold 1-00 acre of land in both Sy.No.125 and 126 to his wife Lingamma, none other than the mother of the plaintiff. After durast the old survey number were renumbered Thus Lingamma had acquired legal and absolute right and title over 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.125/3, 0-29 guntas in Sy.No.126/2 and 1 acre 08 guntas of land in Sy.No. 126/1A2. 1(d) Subsequently, Lingamma wife of Veerabhadraiah, the mother of the plaintiff had executed a Registered Gift Deed dated 25.10.2013 in favor of the plaintiff for an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.125/3 i.e., suit schedule property and the gift was accepted by the plaintiff and revenue documents were also mutated in his name. 2. Insert Para 2(a) after the para No.2 in the plaint. 2(a). Thus the plaintiff is the absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property acquired under the Registered documents. 3. In the prayer of the plaint insert. a) For declaration of plaintiff's title over the suit schedule property. Prayer (a) is named as (b) and prayer (b) is renamed as (c). 2. The plaintiff has sworn to the affidavit in support of an application, wherein he has stated that the plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants for Permanent Injunction with respet to the suit schedule property. At the time of filing of the suit he had prayed only for relief of permanent injunction. But the defendant in his written statement had denied the title of his mother to execute Registered Gift deed in his favor with respect the suit schedule property. The plaintiff want to seek the relief of declaration of his title and also to implead the plaint averments to support his case to prove his title. But the defendant in his written statement had denied the title of his mother to execute Registered Gift deed in his favor with respect the suit schedule property. The plaintiff want to seek the relief of declaration of his title and also to implead the plaint averments to support his case to prove his title. He want to insert those pleadings which were left out in his plaint which does not change the nature of the suit and there is no insertion of new relief of otherwise. The mistake was the unintentional one. The mistake was bonafide one. The proposed amendment is very much necessary for the proper and final adjudication of the suit. Hence the plaintiff prays to allow the application. 3. On the other hand, the defendants have filed objection to the application by denying the same and have further contended that the instant application filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts, as the plaintiff has suppressed the real facts ad the said application is filed after filing of the written statement by the defendant. To fill up the lacuna, on seeing the written statement, the plaintiff has come up with the instant application and the plaintiff has sworn to a false affidavit and hence the application is liable to be dismissed in limine. The plaintiff has filed the suit for relief of Permanent Injunction stating that about one week filing of the suit, the defendant has attempting to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. But, now he is going to amend the prayer seeking declaration of title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and hence the existing cause of action for the suit will be changed. When there is no pending with respect to denying of the title, by the defendant, in the entire plaint and pleadings and hence the question of amendment of prayer for declaration of title does not arise. Further contended that the plaintiff has filed the suit for relief of Permanent Injunction. He himself has now going to amend the prayer seeking declaration of title over the property and hence the present suit will not survive without any valid title. The proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit and the cause of action. Further contended that the plaintiff has filed the suit for relief of Permanent Injunction. He himself has now going to amend the prayer seeking declaration of title over the property and hence the present suit will not survive without any valid title. The proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit and the cause of action. Already issues have been framed and case has been posted for evidence of plaintiff side. In view of the amendment sought for the nature of the suit will be changed and the plaintiff has to file fresh valuation slip and to pay additional court fee and the jurisdiction will be changed in view of the value for the purpose jurisdiction of the suit. Then, this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, as the jurisdiction has to be calculated on the market value of the property. Further if at all the proposed amendment is allowed, the case has to be commenced from earlier stage of amendment, filing amendment plaint, filing of additional written statement, framing of additional issues, framing of preliminary issues with respect to court fee and jurisdiction and it will be mere waste of the precious time of the court. The plaintiff has come up with the instant application after filing of the written statement, to fill up the lacuna and it will cause unnecessary delay in proceedings and automatically jurisdiction will be changed and this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and to pass the proper order for return of plaint to present before the competent court of law, it is only ancillary proceedings without disposing the suit on merits. Further, the proposed amendment is not required in this case, as the defendant has already taken the said contentions and issues have been framed on the said contention, it can be considered on full fledged of the trial also. Once again the proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit and cause of action, as the existing cause of action will not applicable for the amendment payer. On these grounds, the defendants pray to reject the application. 4. Heard and perused all the materials available on record. 5. The following points would arise for consideration of this court are:- POINTS 1. Whether the plaintiff has made out sufficient grounds to allow the I.A. No.III? 2. What Order? 6. On these grounds, the defendants pray to reject the application. 4. Heard and perused all the materials available on record. 5. The following points would arise for consideration of this court are:- POINTS 1. Whether the plaintiff has made out sufficient grounds to allow the I.A. No.III? 2. What Order? 6. The findings of this Court on the above points are as under: Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2: As per the final order for the following: : REASONS: 7. Point No.1: This is the application filed by the plaintiff seeking insertion of additional paragraphs to the plaint as para No.1(a), to (d), after the paragraph No. 1. as para 2(a) after the paragraph No.2 in the plaint, and to add further prayer into the prayer column of the plaint that (a). For declaration of the plaintiff's title over the suit schedule property. On the other hand. the defendants have strongly objected the application and raised several contentions in their objection. 8. This court has examined the entire materials on record. Upon examination, it is evident that the plaintiffs initially filed the present suit against the defendants seeking relief of a permanent injunction and consequential reliefs with respect to the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the defendants have filed their written statement, denying the entire case of the plaintiff and further denying the plaintiff's title over the schedule property. Based upon the pleadings and documents, this court has framed the issues and posted the case for plaintiff's side evidence. When the matter was set down for the plaintiffs side evidence, the plaintiff seeking for amendment of plaint that to insert some additional paragraphs to the plaint, and for add further prayer that to declaration of his title over the schedule property, through the present proposed amendment application. The plaintiff contends that he is the absolute owner of the schedule property by virtue of the registered gift deed dated 25.10.2013 executed by his mother in his favor. Further contends that initially he filed suit for permanent injunction. The defendants filed their written statement and denied the plaintiffs title of the schedule property. The plaintiff contends that he is the absolute owner of the schedule property by virtue of the registered gift deed dated 25.10.2013 executed by his mother in his favor. Further contends that initially he filed suit for permanent injunction. The defendants filed their written statement and denied the plaintiffs title of the schedule property. Thus, the plaintiff seeking permission to insert some additional paragraphs to the plaint as para No.1(a) to (d) after the paragraph No.1 and para No.2(a) after the paragraph No.2 of the plaint, and to add further prayer to the prayer column of the plant that (a) declaration of the plaintiffs title over the schedule property, through the present interim application. On the other hand, the defendants seriously objected the application. 9. The provision of Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure -1908, reads as under: "Rule 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 so 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. 10. By reading the aforesaid provision under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is clear that any amendment application filed by the parties before the commencement of trial. can be considered leniently by the court and the burden of proof will rust upon the party who takes any plea in the pleadings. In this present case, no trial has yet commenced. By going through the affidavit of an application, the objections, the pleadings and all the materials of the case on record, it is evident that there is a serious dispute between the parties regarding the title of the plaintiff over the schedule property. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the amendment sought by the plaintiff through the present application is necessary for determine the real question in controversy between parties. Moreover, the proposed amendment sought by the plaintiff does not create any new cause of action. Therefore, this court feels that an opportunity should be given to the parties to prove their contentions. Moreover, the proposed amendment sought by the plaintiff does not create any new cause of action. Therefore, this court feels that an opportunity should be given to the parties to prove their contentions. If the application is allowed, no hardship will caused to the other side, and the contention taken by the defendants can be tested before the Court of law and which requires a full fledged trial. On these observations, this court is of the opinion that if the present application is not allowed, it will lead to multiplicity of the proceedings and the plaintiff will may be put to much hardship. As such, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to determine the real question between the parties, this court feels the present the application is deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, this Court answers Point No.1 in the Affirmative. 11. Point No.2: For the aforesaid discussions and the finding given on Point No. 1, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The IA No. III filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is hereby allowed. As a result, the plaintiff is permitted to carry out amendment to the plaint as sought in the present proposed amendment application.” 5. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Trial Court has correctly and properly come to the conclusion that the proposed amendment was necessary for adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties and the same would not change or alter the nature of the suit and no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner – defendant if the present impugned order was allowed. 6. In this context, it is necessary to state that the petitioner would be entitled to file additional written statement to the amended plaint and take up all contentions/defence including the defence of maintainability/jurisdiction/Court fee/ limitation etc., in its additional written statement which would necessarily have to be considered by the Trial Court at the time of final disposal of the case as held by the Apex Court in the cases of LIC v. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., - (2022) 16 SCC 1 , LC Hanumanthappa v. HB Shivakumar - AIR 2015 SC 3364 , Dinesh Goyal @pappu v. Suman Agarwal (bindal) & ors. - 2024 INSC 726 . 7. - 2024 INSC 726 . 7. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any miscarriage of justice warranting interference of this Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as held in the cases of 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 Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and without interfering with the impugned order and by issuing certain directions, the petition is disposed of. 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 defendant –petitioner to file additional written statement to amend the plaint. iii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter including limitation, court fee, maintainability are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.