SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA, J.:–Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner and Mr. J.S. Arora, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents.

2. This Civil Misc. Application has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24.05.2019 passed by learned Additional District Judge-II-Saran in Title Appeal No. 18 of 1997 by which the learned Court below has rejected the amendment petition dated 27.11.2018 filed by the petitioner / appellant.

3. The petitioner was plaintiff in the trial Court who had filed Title Suit bearing Title Suit No. 325 of 1987 in the Court of Sub-Judge-1, Chapra praying for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff in joint use and occupation of suit properties or from dispossessing the plaintiff from the same. The original defendant Nos. 1 to 3 (ancestor of respondent 1st set) filed written statement and contested the suit. After completion of trial of the suit, the learned Court of Sub-Judge-2, Chapra dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 21.01.1997. The plaintiff/petitioner has filed Title Appeal bearing Title Appeal No. 18 of 1997 against the said judgment and decree dated 21.01.1997.

4. The petitioner on 21.07.2017 filed amendment petition. After hearing at length, on consent on behalf of the parties to dispose of the case, the amendment petition dated 21.07.2017 related to amendment of the plaint and its rejoinder filed on behalf of the respondent, the learned Appellate Court vide order dated 18.01.2018 held that if required according to law, the same would be considered at the time of final hearing of appeal.

5. The plaintiff/petitioner filed another amendment petition on 27.11.2018 to amend the plaint which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 24.05.2019.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is perverse and has been passed ignoring that proposed amendment do not cause such prejudice to the respondents which cannot be compensated by costs. Further, it is submitted that the proposed amendments are either clarificatory and explanatory or are correction of clerical / typing error / omission which are required to be corrected for proper adjudication of Title appeal and accordingly the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court under its supervisory jurisdiction. He has further submitted that the proposed amendment is based on the fact that some mortgage deeds in the name of either the petitioner or his grandmother have set-off in sale deed purchased in the name of Mathura Rai which shows joint acquisition. This assertion is recited in the sale deed dated 29.12.1967 executed by Janki Devi to Mathura Rai. He has further submitted that amendment sought is formal in nature, it will not change the nature or character of the plaint and will not prejudice respondents. He has further submitted that it is well settled that delay in filing petition for amendment is no ground of refusal of amendment.

7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that proviso to the Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. is not applicable in this case and referred the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Hyderabad Vs. Town Municipal Council reported in (2007) 1 SCC 765 wherein it is clarified that the proviso appended in Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. was added by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 which came into force with effect from 01.07.2002 and in view of the said provision there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the suit having been filed in the year 1998, proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code shall not apply.

8. He has further referred the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited reported in AIR 2022 SC 4256 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summed up the conclusions with respect to amendment of plead