( 1. ) SHRI A. P. Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner. SHRI Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents.

( 2. ) WITH the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 10-11-2011 by which the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint has been rejected. In order to appreciate the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order, few facts need mention, which are state infra.

( 3. ) THE petitioner has filed a suit seeking relief of partition. THE claim in the suit is based on the ground that the petitioner is the mother of deceased Rajeev Arora and a category-I heir. In paragraph 1 of the plaint, it has been stated that defendants No. 1 and 2 i.e. the respondents are widow and son respectively of Late Rajeev Arora. Similarly, in paragraph 9 of the plaint it is stated that the petitioner as well as respondents No. 1 and 2 are entitled to one-third share each in the property of Late Rajeev Arora. Accordingly, the relief of partition of the property has been sought. THE respondents on receipt of summons of the suit have filed written statement in which the claim of the plaintiff that she is entitled to one-third share in the suit property has been admitted. THE respondents filed written statement before the trial Court on 4-11-2011. However, on that very day, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint in which it was, inter alia, pleaded that the respondent No. 1 had settled her claim with the son of the petitioner and had separated from him. It was further submitted that respondent No. 1 had stopped using the surname "Arora". Accordingly, by the proposed amendment a plea was sought to be incorporated that respondent No. 1 is not entitled to any share in the property of Late Rajeev Arora. THE respondents filed reply to the aforesaid application for amendment. THE trial Court, however, vide impugned order dated 10-11-2011 rejected the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the application is not supported by documentary evidence. Accordingly, the application for amendment was rejected. In the aforesaid background the petitioner has approached this Court.

( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application for amendment was made at the pre-trial stage. It was further submitted that while deciding the application for amendment the merits of the amendment cannot be considered by the trial Court. It was also submitted that the trial Court grossly erred in rejecting the application for amendment filed by the petitioner. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2008(3) MPU (S.C.) 460 = (2008) 3 SCC 717, Usha Devi vs. Rijwan Ahamad and others.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the amendment of the plaint was filed with mala fide intention with a view to protract the trial. It was further submitted that marriage of the respondent No. 1 with Late Rajeev Arora was never dissolved and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 is the legally married wife of deceased Rajeev Arora and is entitled to one-third share in the suit property. It was further submitted that if the Court finds that the application for amendment is mala fide, same may be rejected. The order passed by the trial Court is just and legal and does not call for any interference.

( 5. ) I have considered the submissions made on both sides. The Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with amendment of pleadings. The application for amendment can be made at any stage of the proceedings by the parties to the suit. The application for amendment can be made before the trial is commenced or after the trial is commenced. The law relating to grant of amendment of pleading is well defined a catena of decisions of Supre