ORDER :

1. By filing the present writ petition the petitioners/ plaintiffs have assailed the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the Court of learned Addl. District Sessions Judge, Dudu, District Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No. 38/2017, whereby the application filed by them on 08.08.2018 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed.

2. The facts in brief as borne out from the pleadings and arguments are that the petitioners/ plaintiffs filed a civil suit on 16.10.2017 for cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 18.06.2015 and for permanent injunction stating that there is a land bearing Khasra No.814, situated in village Mehla, Tehsil Mauujmabad, District Jaipur. It was prayed that the registered sale deed dated 18.06.2015 be cancelled in respect of the property in question and the respondent/ defendant may be restrained permanently not to alienate, mortgage etc. the property in question.

3. After recording of the evidence, the matter was posted for arguments on 03.05.2018 and further on two other dates.

4. On 08.08.2018 the petitioners/ plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for seeking amendment in the plaint, to add pleadings and the prayer for recovery of Rs.79 lakhs. The trial court dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 28.08.2019.

5. Counsel appearing for the petitioners /plaintiffs submitted that by an inadvertent mistake the petitioners/ plaintiffs have failed to make an alternative prayer for recovery of the amount, and therefore, they want to make an amendment in the plaint incorporating the pleadings in regard to the recovery of amount of Rs.79 lakhs and also to the amend the prayer clause for decree of the suit for recovery of Rs.79 lakhs.

Counsel further submits that the trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs without making proper consideration on the provisions of law in regard to the powers of the trial court for allowing amendment in the plaint. Counsel submits that the amendment sought by the petitioners/ plaintiffs in no manner will change the nature of the suit and also will not prejudice the case of the respondent/defendant.

In support of the submissions, counsel appearing for the petitioners /plaintiffs has placed reliance upon following judgments:-

1. State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Modern Tent House & Anr., reported in (2017) 8 SCC 567;

2. Surender Kumar Sharma Vs. Makhan singh, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 626; and

3. Abdul Rehman & Anr. Vs. Mohd. Ruldu & Ors., reported in (2012) 11 SCC 341.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the petitioners/ plaintiffs and also perused the material available on the record.

7. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC provides for provisions in regard to seeking amendment in the pleadings. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is quoted as under:-

“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.”

8. In the present case the petitioners/ plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed. After order of ex-parte proceedings against the respondent/ defendant on 16.11.2017, the petitioners/ plaintiffs produced their evidence on 02.04.2018 and on the very same day their evidence was closed and the matter was posted for arguments on 03.05.2018. After 03.05.2018, the matter was thereafter posted for arguments on two other dates and thereafter on 08.08.2018 the petitioners/ plaintiffs filed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for s