O R D E R

The petitioner assails the order dated 06.02.2021, whereby the application preferred by respondent/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC was allowed by the Court below.

2. At the threshold, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the application for amendment is filed and allowed by the Court below before commencement of the trial. However, he submits that the fact which became part of amendment application were well within the knowledge of the plaintiff since beginning and therefore, in view of the SA No.660/2009 (Ramkishore Vs. Sampatlal Vyas) decided on 20.06.2012 should have been dismissed. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The Gwalior bench in the aforesaid judgment in para no.15 considered the amended provision of the Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC makes it clear that the parameters for considering the amendment application before commencement of the trial or after commencement of the trial are different. If the application is filed before commencement, it must be dealt with leniently, whereas the amendment application filed after commencement of trial must show Abdul Rehman v. Mohd. Ruldu, reported in (2012)

11 SCC 341

10. Before considering the factual details and the materials placed by the appellants praying for amendment of their plaint, it is useful to refer Order 6 Rule 17 which is as under:

“17.Amendment of pleadings.—The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading 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.”

It is clear that parties to the suit are permitted to bring forward amendment of their pleadings at any stage of the proceeding for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between them. The courts have to be liberal in accepting the same, if the same is made prior to the commencement of the trial. If such application is made after the commencement of the trial, in that event, the court has to arrive at a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

4. In the Ramkishore case (supra), the application was hit by proviso and for this reason the judgment was passed in a different manner whereas in the instant case, the proviso is not an impediment for the plaintiff because the trial did not begin and the application was required to be dealt with leniency. The Court below dealt with the application leniently and no fault can be found in the said order.

5. Interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be made on limited grounds. If order suffers from any jurisdictional error, manifest procedure, impropriety or palpable perversity interference can be made. Another view is possible is not a ground for interference. The Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra 2010) 8 SCC 329

held as under:-

"49. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated:

(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court under these two Articles is also different.

(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the

High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above.

(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop