Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner, by way of filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing and setting aside order dated 18.1.2011 passed in Title Suit No. 21/2003 by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat, whereby the prayer made on behalf of the plaintiff for allowing to amend the plaint by filing a petition dated 21.2.2009 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 C. P.C. Has been allowed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that application for amendment was submitted by the plaintiff at belated stage under the pretext of some typographical mistakes and to bring certain facts, which are necessary for determination of the real issue before the Court. It is also submitted that the issues were finalized in the year 2004 and the matter is required to be decided on the basis of issues which have been framed in the suit. However, the Court below allowed the amendment application, which is contrary to the provisions contained under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also submitted that the written statement was filed on 9th September 2004 and thereafter, issues have been finalized in the year 2004 and the plaintiff's evidence has been closed on 23rd February 2007 and therefore, the interest of defendant is likely to be prejudiced as the defendant will not have an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses on the additional facts brought by way of amendment petition. It is further submitted that the Title Suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of possession and now the plaintiff is coming with a new fact, which is inconsistent with the original pleadings and, therefore, such amendment should not be allowed. However, the learned court below has not properly considered this crucial point while allowing the amendment petition. It is further submitted that the respondent-plaintiff miserably failed to indicate or justify the due diligence, as required under the proviso under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the following judgments in support of his arguments;

1. 2009(10) SCC 84

2. 2010(2) JCR 406 [2010(1) JLJR 690]

3. (2009)2 SCC 409

4. 2012 SAR (Civil) 169.

.4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that the learned court below has not committed any jurisdictional error while exercising the power vested upon it by allowing the said amendment petition. It is further submitted that the learned court below has rightly and properly taken into account relevant aspect which are required to be consider while allowing or disallowing the amendment. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has allowed the amendment so as to avoid any multiplicity of the proceedings as also for the ends of justice. It is further submitted that learned Court below has also observed that the plaintiff has shown due diligence as required under the proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. Learned counsel for the respondent by referring para 5 of the said amendment petition pointed out that the plaintiff has explained about the due diligence in the application seeking amendment. According to the learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, the certain mistakes were detected only in the 2nd week of February 2009 when the plaintiff was preparing his case on the basis of the documents filed by the plaintiff and defendant as the defendant has filed some documents later on. It is further submitted that the amendment in question is in consonance with the pleadings and the certain additional facts have been brought on record so as to assist the court in determining the real controversies between the parties. It is further submitted that the amendment in question is not going to affect adversely to the defendant as the defendant will get chance to file written statement and also to lead evidence in respect of the said amendment, if required. It is further submi