Sabina, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS have filed this petition challenging the order dated 28.5.2012 whereby application moved by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('CPC' for short), was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners wanted to incorporate certain facts in the plaint as they were inadvertently not mentioned in the plaint. Further the petitioners wanted to make some corrections in the plaint which had arisen on account of typographical errors. Learned counsel has further submitted that, although, issues have been framed but so far no evidence had been led by the petitioners. The amendment sought by the petitioners was very necessary for the just decision of the case. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar and another',, 2010 (1) CCC 0446, wherein it was held as under: - - 15. We are unable to agree with this submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. In this case, in our view, the trial has not yet commenced. In para 17, of Baldev Singh (Supra), this Court observed: - - It appears from the records that the parties have yet to file their documentary evidence in the suit. From the record, it also appears that the suit was not on the verge of conclusion as found by the High Court and the Trial Court. That apart, commencement of trial as used in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 in the Code of Civil Procedure must be understood in the limited sense as meaning the final hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of arguments. As noted hereinafter, parties are yet to file their documents, we do not find any reason to reject the application for amendment of the written statement in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC which confers wide power and unfettered discretion to the Court to allow an amendment of the written statement at any stage of the proceedings. 16. In view of the aforesaid decision and in view of the admitted fact that not even the issues have yet been framed, documents have not yet been filed, evidence has not yet been adduced, we are of the view that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC has no manner of application as the trial has not yet commenced.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that by way of amendment, the petitioners wanted to withdraw the admissions made by them in the plaint. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC reads as under: - 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.
(3.) THUS , as per the above provision, the Court has ample power to allow either of the party to amend its pleadings which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. However, as per the proviso the application for amendment shall not be allowed after the trial has commenced.;