JUDGMENT : BIPIN GUPTA, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 01.09.2023 passed by the learned Commercial Court No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Civil Suit No. 94/2023 (CIS No. 122/2020), whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint has been rejected. 2. The controversy in a narrow compass is that the plaintiff- petitioner instituted a summary suit on 22.01.2020 against the defendant-respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,16,99,746/- inclusive of interest at the rate of 24%, arising out of the supply of goods. 3. Upon service of summons, the defendant-respondent filed his written statement, denying the averments made in the plaint and contending, inter alia, that the goods supplied by the plaintiff were not of the requisite quality, due to which the same were returned and the payment was adjusted. Subsequently, the plaintiff-petitioner filed a rejoinder, controverting the stand taken by the defendant-respondent. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the issues. The plaintiff-petitioner led his evidence by way of affidavit and the cross-examination of PW-1 commenced. However, at this stage, the plaintiff-petitioner moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment of plaint to incorporate pleadings in the form of clarification/elaboration relating to jurisdiction of the Court, limitation, valuation of the suit and cause of action stating that the same were not elaborated due to inadvertent and bonafide mistake on account of drafting. 5. The said application was opposed by the defendant-respondent on the ground that the trial proceedings of the suit had already commenced and that the application was merely a tactic to delay the suit proceedings. 6. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned order dated 01.09.2023, rejected the application preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner, observing that in view of the provision to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, no amendment of the pleadings shall be allowed after the commencement of the trial proceedings unless the Court comes to a conclusion that despite due diligence the party could not raise the issue. 7. Hence, the present writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application seeking amendment of the plaint cannot be said to be belated merely because the examination-in-chief of PW-1 had been tendered and his cross-examination had commenced. 7. Hence, the present writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application seeking amendment of the plaint cannot be said to be belated merely because the examination-in-chief of PW-1 had been tendered and his cross-examination had commenced. He submitted that the evidence of PW-1 had not even been completed and, therefore, the trial could not be said to have substantially progressed so as to non-suit the petitioner on the ground of delay. 8.1. He further submitted that the amendment sought at this stage is purely explanatory and clarificatory in nature, and merely intends to bring on record certain material particulars in relation to cause of action, valuation of the suit, jurisdiction of the Court and limitation, which are foundational issues required to be examined for proper adjudication of the suit. Therefore, incorporation of such facts at the present stage would not cause any prejudice to the respondent, as no vested right would be taken away and the respondent would have full opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff. 8.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proposed amendment is corollary and incidental to the original pleadings and does not alter the nature or character of the suit. He further contended that the amendment in fact would assist the Court below in rendering a well-reasoned adjudication and would also prevent multiplicity of proceedings, which is one of the primary objects underlying Order VI Rule 17 CPC. 8.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the omission to incorporate certain legal details in the original plaint occurred due to inadvertence and oversight on the part of the counsel, and it is a settled position of law that a litigant should not be penalized for the mistake of his advocate, particularly when the amendment sought is bonafide and necessary for the determination of the real questions in controversy. 8.4. In support of these submissions, learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the following judgments: (i) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2022 (16) SCC 1 (ii) Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manohar Lal , 2017 (5) SCC 212 (iii) Abdul Rehman vs. Mohd. Ruldu & Ors. 2012 (11) SCC 341 (iv) Vidyabai vs. Padmalatha , AIR 2009 SC 1433 (v) Varun Pahwa vs. Renu Choudhary , AIR 2019 SC 1186 9. 2022 (16) SCC 1 (ii) Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manohar Lal , 2017 (5) SCC 212 (iii) Abdul Rehman vs. Mohd. Ruldu & Ors. 2012 (11) SCC 341 (iv) Vidyabai vs. Padmalatha , AIR 2009 SC 1433 (v) Varun Pahwa vs. Renu Choudhary , AIR 2019 SC 1186 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the amendment application has admittedly been filed after the commencement of trial, and therefore, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC squarely applies. 9.1. It was argued that the petitioner failed to demonstrate due diligence, as required under the proviso, since all the facts now sought to be incorporated were well within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing of the suit. 9.2. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that during the cross-examination of PW-1, certain questions put to the witness, exposed deficiencies in the plaint relating to jurisdiction, valuation of the suit and limitation, and only thereafter the present amendment application was filed in an attempt to fill up lacunae in the pleadings, Hence, such an exercise, is impermissible keeping in view the fact that the trial has already commenced. 9.3. Learned counsel further highlighted that the suit was instituted in the year 2020, whereas the amendment application was preferred in the year 2023, which clearly reflect gross delay and lack of due diligence. 9.4. Learned counsel for the respondent thus while supporting the impugned order submitted that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order. 9.5. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey & Anr. Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & Ors. 2006 (12) SCC 1 to buttress his arguments. 10. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. 11. This Court, on perusal of the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, finds it appropriate to reproduce the original pleadings as well as the amendments sought therein by the petitioner. 2006 (12) SCC 1 to buttress his arguments. 10. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. 11. This Court, on perusal of the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, finds it appropriate to reproduce the original pleadings as well as the amendments sought therein by the petitioner. 11.1 Paragraph No. 20 of the original plaint, which relates to the aspect of jurisdiction, reads as under: "That the present case is filed within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court since the petitioner and respondent company offices are situated in Bhiwandi-Alwar-Jaipur." 11.2 By way of the present application, the petitioner seeks to amend the aforesaid paragraph. The amended Paragraph No. 20, as proposed, reads as under: "20. That the present case is filed within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court since the booking of goods were made at Jaipur registered office of the petitioner then same were sent by the petitioner from Jaipur to its Bhiwandi and then to the respondent. Hence, part of cause of action arises at the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court." 11.3 Paragraph No. 23 of the original plaint, dealing with the issue of valuation of suit and amount of Court fees, reads as under: "Valuation of the subject matter: The valuation of this application for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction is thus fixed court fee of Rs....... is affixed thereon. That present petition is filed by paying proper duty as required under law." 11.4 The petitioner now seeks to substitute the aforesaid paragraph with the following amended paragraph: "23. Valuation of the subject matter: That present petition is filed by paying proper duty as required under law. That as on date, the valuation of the suit for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction is Rs.1,16,99,746.00/- (Rupees One Crore Sixteen Thousand Ninety Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Six Only), on which proper ad-valorem Court fee of 3,61,130/- stands paid. The petitioner undertakes to pay the requisite Court fees on the decree amount at the time of the final adjudication." 11.5 Paragraph 19 of the original plaint, which related to the cause of action, reads as under: "The petitioner claim is admitted and is within the period of limitation and not barred by law of limitation. The petitioner undertakes to pay the requisite Court fees on the decree amount at the time of the final adjudication." 11.5 Paragraph 19 of the original plaint, which related to the cause of action, reads as under: "The petitioner claim is admitted and is within the period of limitation and not barred by law of limitation. It is deemed that the respondent in unable to pay its debts and has therefore rendered itself liable to be liable for payment of dues." 11.6 The amendment sought for in Paragraph No. 19 reads as under: "19. The petitioner claim is admitted and is within the period of limitation and not barred by law of limitation. It is deemed that the respondent in unable to pay its debts and has therefore rendered itself liable to be liable for payment of dues. That the cause of action for filing of the present suit, first arose on 24.02.2014 when the legal notice was sent by petitioner for recovery of amount. That the cause of action further arose on 06.12.2018 when Hon'ble Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to filed civil suit. That the cause of action further arose on 07.06.2019 when the petitioner company issued legal notice to the respondent to repay the outstanding dues. The cause of action further arose on 18.02.2020 when the Non-Starter Report was issued by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur. That the cause of action is still a continuing one. Hence, the present suit is therefore, well within the limitation period." 11.7 The petitioner also sought to incorporate the verification clause after the prayer portion of the plaint. 12. The scope and ambit of Order VI Rule 17 is well settled. The provision empowers the Court to allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings if such amendment is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. The proviso, introduced thereafter vide Amendment Act of 2002, restricts such power after commencement of trial unless the Court concludes that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter earlier. For ready reference, Order VI Rule 17 CPC is reproduced herein below: " 17. The proviso, introduced thereafter vide Amendment Act of 2002, restricts such power after commencement of trial unless the Court concludes that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter earlier. For ready reference, Order VI Rule 17 CPC is reproduced herein below: " 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." 13. The law in this regard is quite clear and consistently reiterated that the Courts should adopt a liberal approach while considering the applications for amendment of pleadings and the same should be rejected only in those cases where the other party would be placed in a disadvantageous position, and where the resulting prejudice cannot be adequately compensated by costs. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil , AIR 1957 SC 363 , a decision which continues to hold the field, the Hon'ble Apex Court authoritatively laid down that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions: (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. 14. Thus, an amendment to the pleadings ought to be allowed when it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint and when such amendment is necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. The said position of law has been reiterated in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr. 2022 (16) SCC 1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while discussing the said position of law held as under: “70 . Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: (i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. Our final conclusions may be summed up thus: (i) Order II Rule 2 CPC operates as a bar against a subsequent suit if the requisite conditions for application thereof are satisfied and the field of amendment of pleadings falls far beyond its purview. The plea of amendment being barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC is, thus, misconceived and hence negatived. (ii) 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 6 Rule 17 CPC. (iii) The prayer for amendment is to be allowed: (i) If the amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. (ii) To avoid multiplicity of proceedings, provided: (a) the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side. (b) by the amendment, the parties seeking amendment do not seek to withdraw any clear admission made by the party which confers a right on the other side. (c) the amendment does not raise a time-barred claim, resulting in divesting of the other side of a valuable accrued right (in certain situations). (iv) A prayer for amendment is generally required to be allowed unless: (i) By the amendment, a time-barred claim is sought to be introduced, in which case the fact that the claim would be time-barred becomes a relevant factor for consideration. (ii) The amendment changes the nature of the suit. (iii) The prayer for amendment is mala fide, or (iv) By the amendment, the other side loses a valid defence. (v) In dealing with a prayer for amendment of pleadings, the court should avoid a hyper technical approach, and is ordinarily required to be liberal especially where the opposite party can be compensated by costs. (vi) Where the amendment would enable the court to pin- pointedly consider the dispute and would aid in rendering a more satisfactory decision, the prayer for amendment should be allowed. (vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time- barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. (viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (vii) Where the amendment merely sought to introduce an additional or a new approach without introducing a time- barred cause of action, the amendment is liable to be allowed even after expiry of limitation. (viii) Amendment may be justifiably allowed where it is intended to rectify the absence of material particulars in the plaint. (ix) Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. Where the aspect of delay is arguable, the prayer for amendment could be allowed and the issue of limitation framed separately for decision. (x) Where the amendment changes the nature of the suit or the cause of action, so as to set up an entirely new case, foreign to the case set up in the plaint, the amendment must be disallowed. Where, however, the amendment sought is only with respect to the relief in the plaint, and is predicated on facts which are already pleaded in the plaint, ordinarily the amendment is required to be allowed.” 15. In the present case, the amendments sought by the petitioner pertain to jurisdiction of the Court, valuation of the suit, limitation and elaboration of cause of action, which are not foreign to the original pleadings but are foundational and statutory requirements. Since in the present case, the examination-in-chief of PW-1 has been filed and only the cross-examination had commenced, and the evidence has not yet concluded. Therefore, the Court is duty bound to allow such amendments at this stage itself as the amendment sought are fundamental for the proper adjudication of the matter. 16. Moreover, on a careful perusal of the proposed amendments, this Court finds that the amendment does not introduce a new cause of action nor does it alter the nature or character of the suit rather it merely elucidates the original pleadings. The claim continues to arise out of the same transaction relating to supply of goods and recovery of the outstanding amount and also the relief sought remains unchanged. Thus, it is clear that the amendments proposed only seek to elaborate the pleadings and it neither enlarges the scope of the suit nor takes the respondent by surprise. 17. Furthermore, Order VII Rule 1 CPC specifically enumerates the particulars which a plaint must contain, including the facts constituting the cause of action, the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and court fees, and statements relating to limitation. 17. Furthermore, Order VII Rule 1 CPC specifically enumerates the particulars which a plaint must contain, including the facts constituting the cause of action, the valuation of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction and court fees, and statements relating to limitation. Moreover, drafting a plaint in conformity with these statutory requirements is primarily the responsibility of the counsel, who is expected to possess the requisite legal expertise to incorporate such particulars appropriately. 18. This Court thus finds merit in the contention that a litigant ought not to suffer for the omission or inadvertence of his counsel in not elaborately stating the aforesaid particulars, particularly when the proposed amendment neither changes the nature and character of the suit nor introduces a new cause of action. The amendments are explanatory and clarificatory in nature and merely supply material particulars which were otherwise implicit in the original pleadings. 19. As regards the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, though the trial has technically commenced, the requirement of “due diligence” has to be appreciated in a pragmatic manner. Due diligence is to be observed by the advocate while drafting pleadings, and any lapse on that count should not, in the facts of the present case, operate to the prejudice of the client. 20. Further, a bare reading of Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC clarifies that, if the Court finds that the suit will fail for some formal defect then the same can be permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh on same cause of action. The particulars in a suit, as are required to be pleaded in terms of Order VII Rule 1 CPC, if are not correctly pleaded and for formal defect a suit may fail, then the power is vested with the Court to permit the plaintiff to withdraw the suit. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. Rajendran and Ors. vs. Annasamy Pandian (D) through LRs. Karthyayani Natchiar, 2017 (5) SCC 63 defined the formal defects and observed as under: 10. In K.S. Bhoopathy and Ors. v. Kokila and Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 458 , it has been held that it is the duty of the Court to be satisfied about the existence of "formal defect" or "sufficient grounds" before granting permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit under the same cause of action. In K.S. Bhoopathy and Ors. v. Kokila and Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 458 , it has been held that it is the duty of the Court to be satisfied about the existence of "formal defect" or "sufficient grounds" before granting permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit under the same cause of action. Though, liberty may lie with the Plaintiff in a suit to withdraw the suit at any time after the institution of suit on establishing the "formal defect" or "sufficient grounds", such right cannot be considered to be so absolute as to permit or encourage abuse of process of Court. The fact that the Plaintiff is entitled to abandon or withdraw the suit or part of the claim by itself, is no licence to the Plaintiff to claim or to do so to the detriment of legitimate right of the Defendant. When an application is filed under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) Code of Civil Procedure, the Court must be satisfied about the "formal defect" or "sufficient grounds". "Formal defect" is a defect of form prescribed by the Rules of procedure such as, want of notice Under Section 80 Code of Civil Procedure, improper valuation of the suit, insufficient court fee, confusion regarding identification of the suit property, mis-joinder of parties, failure to disclose a cause of action etc. "Formal defect" must be given a liberal meaning which connotes various kinds of defects not affecting the merits of the plea raised by either of the parties." 21. This Court finds that if such powers are vested with the Courts that a suit may be permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh, if the suit is liable to be dismissed for some formal defects, then why not amendment can be permitted to cure the formal defects by allowing the elaboration of material particulars as to valuation for the purpose of jurisdiction, cause of action and limitation, so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. 22. In view of the above observation, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.09.2023 passed by the learned Commercial Court No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Civil Suit No. 94/2023 is hereby set aside. The application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC stands allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the defendant-respondent. 23. The impugned order dated 01.09.2023 passed by the learned Commercial Court No. 2, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in Civil Suit No. 94/2023 is hereby set aside. The application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC stands allowed, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the defendant-respondent. 23. After filing of the amended plaint, the respondent shall be at liberty to file an additional written statement, if so advised, and the learned Trial Court shall thereafter proceed with the suit in accordance with law. 24. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.