Arun Kumar Jha, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent on the point of admission and I intend to dispose of the present petition at the stage of admission itself.

2. The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 06.12.2016 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Paliganj in Title Suit No. 20 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the learned trial court rejected the amendment petition filed by the plaintiff/petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is plaintiff before the learned trial court and has filed Title Partition Suit No. 20 of 2014 seeking following reliefs:—

“(a) Preliminary decree for partition of 1/3rd share of the plaintiff in the properties in suit detailed in Schedule I & II below be passed in favour of the plaintiff and by appointment of a Survey Knowing Advocate Commissioner a separate takhta of the plaintiff’s be carved out and on preparation of the final decree the plaintiff be put in possession of her separate takhta through the process of the court.

(b) Cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff against the defendants.

(c) Any other relief or relief to which the plaintiff is found entitled be passed in favour of the plaintiff”.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the said partition suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) for making amendment in the plaint, which was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 06.12.2016 mainly on the ground that the trial of the suit has already commenced and three witnesses including the plaintiff have been examined and, thus, the amendment petition was hit by the proviso of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. Further, ground of rejection was that the proposed amendment was likely to change the nature of the suit. The learned counsel further submits that the plaintiff/petitioner is the daughter of defendant nos. 1 & 2 and she is a female member of joint family of the plaintiff and the defendants and she was not having correct idea about the joint family property or the relationship of ancestors. By way of proposed amendment, only genealogical table was sought to be corrected and, thereafter, details of properties were also sought to be modified. The learned counsel further submits that by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that bringing the amendments would change the nature of suit as the suit was filed for partition and only to bring clarity, the amendments were sought to be incorporated. The learned counsel further submits that though the amendments were brought at a later stage, but the same would be explained as the plaintiff/petitioner is a lady and was not having proper knowledge regarding property or relationship. The delay in moving the amendment could be explained and if the court feels that for deciding the issue, in question, such amendments were necessary, the same ought to have been allowed. The learned counsel relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders (P) Ltd., reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128 in which it has been held that the amendment should be allowed to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and if it is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties. The learned counsel further submits that if the amendment is not allowed, certainly it would lead to multiplicity of litigation since the plaintiff/petitioner would be within her right to bring another suit for partition of properties which are left to be mentioned in the original suit. The learned counsel further submits that by the said amendment there will be no change in the nature of the suit but the learned trial court, under some misconception of law, has held that by way of this amendment,