Arun Kumar Jha, J.—The instant petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.06.2022 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 43 of 2017 by learned Additional District Judge-XII, Muzaffarpur whereby and whereunder one of the amendments sought on behalf of the petitioner/opposite party no. 1 under Order VI, Rule-17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”) has been refused.

2. Briefly stated facts which appear from the record are that the petitioner, Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts (hereinafter “the Board”), issued a notification contained in Memo No. 2010 dated 07.10.2016 under Section 32 of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter “the Act”) constituting a Trust Committee for management of the affairs of Seva Sangh Nyas Parshad, Saraiyaganj, Muzaffarpur which is a public Trust registered with the Board vide Registration No. 3992. The respondents filed a Miscellaneous Case bearing No. 43 of 2017 dated 15.07.2017 before the learned District Judge, Muzaffarpur under Section 32(3) of the Act, 1950 seeking the following reliefs:—

“A. That upon consideration of the facts stated above the court be pleased to set aside the scheme so settled vide order dated 07.10.2016 as published in Bihar Gazette dated 26.04.2017 by the opp. Party with respect to Schedule-I of the case application.

B. That the cost of the case be awarded to the applicants.

C. That the court be pleased to grant any other relief or reliefs to which the applicants be found entitles."

Written objection was filed on behalf of the petitioner/opposite party no. 1 on 15.03.2019. Finding certain typographical/factual errors, petitioner/opposite party no. 1 filed an amendment petition under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code seeking the following amendments:—

“1. That in line no. 9 of Para 5 of the Objection after the word "was" the word "not" be added.

2. That after completion of Para 5 of the Objection the following words be added Actually the same was purchased from the then owner namely Jauhar Chand in the name of Ram KumarJalan (one of Trustees) by the trustees of Seva Sangh Trust for Rs. 12500/- out of the trust fund of Rs. 40000/- collected through contribution from General Publicand the said house and the lands belong to the trust. It is worth to say that Ram Kumar Jalan had beneficial interest in the same and this no fact was also admitted by Ram Kumar Jalan in the Trust Deed No.-2314 of 1949.

3. That in line no.-3 & 4 of para 20 of objection the following words "and had captured of the upper floor of the trust building" be deleted."

To it, the respondents/applicants filed an objection petition. The respondent no. 9, who had filed an intervention application to be added as opposite party in Miscellaneous Case No. 43 of 2017, also filed an objection petition on 14.12.2019. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional District Judge- XII, Muzaffarpur passed an order dated 28.06.2022 whereby the first two amendments have been allowed but the third amendment has been rejected and the said order is under challenge before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in the eye of law as the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that the amendment sought on behalf of the petitioner is formal in nature and will not change the nature of the case. The learned trial court has further failed to appreciate that the amendment has been sought at the initial stage of trial and is in the interest of justice considering the object of Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code. It is settled proposition of law that procedural provisions like amendment of plaint or written statement and limitation should be interpreted to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat it. All the rules and procedures are hand maids of justice and the language employed by the draftsmen of procedural law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that that object of prescribing procedu