JUDGMENT :

B.R. Sarangi, J.

1. Assailing the order dated 17.4.2015 passed by the learned District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T.-I, Balasore in M.A.C. Case No. 463 of 2013, rejecting the application filed by opposite party No. 2-Company, petitioner herein, under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC for amendment of the pleadings, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The epitome of the facts of the case is that opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 being the claimants before the learned District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T.-I, Balasore, filed M.A.C. Case No. 463 of 2013 claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act due to the death of one Surendra Nath Sial in a vehicular accident caused on 26.11.2013 at about 5 A.M. morning. While the deceased was coming from his native village Jhadata to Balasore by a Mahindra-Duro Scooty bearing No. OR-01TC-116, a Ashok Leyland truck bearing No. W.B.11-B-0097 which was coming from the backside, negligently and carelessly with high speed towards Balasore, dashed the deceased at Gouduni Pokhari Chhak on N.H. 5, as a result of which the deceased fell down on the ground and sustained serious injuries on his person. Immediately, he was shifted by the local people to the District Headquarters Hospital, Balasore through Ambulance bearing No. 108. On being admitted, during the treatment the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, post-mortem was conducted over the dead body by the doctors of District Headquarters Hospital, Balasore on the same day. As the vehicular accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing number W.B.-11B-0097, the claimants-opposite parties 2 to 5 being the legal heirs of the deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation from the petitioner-company as well as from the owner of the vehicle.

3. On being noticed, the petitioner-Insurance Company entered appearance and contested the case. During trial after examination and cross-examination of witnesses from the side of the claimants, the opposite party No. 2, petitioner herein filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC to amend the written statement with regard to the facts relating to the manner of accident, which was not within the knowledge of the Insurance company, but subsequently, the same was gathered from the news paper 'Samab' dated 2.11.2013. The same was duly opposed by the claimants opposite parties 2 to 5 herein. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T.-I, Balasore rejected the application filed by the petitioner-company under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC vide order dated 17.4.2015. Hence, this petition.

4. Mr. A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the amendment sought will not change the nature and character of the case and as such, the learned District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T.-I, Balasore has committed gross error apparent on the face of the record by not permitting the petitioner to amend the written statement by allowing the application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC filed by the petitioner-company. In order to substantiate his contention, he has placed reliance on Sarat Chandra Parija and another v. Pramila Parija and others, 100 (2005) CLT 221.

5. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned counsel for opposite parties 2 to 5 stated that since the trial has commenced, the learned District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T.-I, Balasore is justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner-company under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC.

6. Order-6, Rule-17 of the C.P.C. which states for amendment of the pleadings, reads as follows:--

"Order-6, Rule- [17. Amendment of pleading - 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 b