CRP 352/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY Heard Mr B Ullah, learned counsel for the petitioner. The defendant in TS no.8/2010 has filed the present application under Ar ticle 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 6th August, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Lakhimpur, allowing applicat ion filed by the respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. The respondent, as plaintiff had instituted the aforesaid suit for decla ration that he is entitled to renewal of lease agreement of the suit room descri bed at schedule A for at least 5 years and thereafter for another five years con tending inter alia that there being a relationship of landlord and tenant betwee n present petitioner and the respondent and despite there being an agreement in place with a clause for renewal, renewal has not been made. The said suit has been contested by the present petitioner by filing his written statement. The respondent, during pendency of suit, had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC praying for amendment of pleadings in the plaint, because of some subsequent event, contending inter alia that the licence, which was gra nted by the authority for doing the pharmacy business by the plaintiff, due for renewal in the month of June, 2011, could not be renewed because of non-renewal of lease agreement. The plaintiff, consequently, prayed for amendment of pleadi ngs in paragraph 8 in the plaint as well as the prayer in the plaint. Learned court below, on consideration of the petition filed by the plain tiff as well as objection filed by the defendant, passed the impugned order allo wing amendment, as prayed, on the ground that such amendment is necessary for ad judicating the dispute between the parties effectively and completely. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since p roviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 CPC imposes a bar on entertaining an application se eking amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial, that is, after framing of issues, the learned court below ought not to have entertained the applicatio n. It appears from averments made in the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC that the subsequent event occurred after framing of issues. That being th e position, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in allow ing amendment, which was found to be necessary for determining real questions of controversy between the parties. Such amendment would, naturally, avoid multipl icity of proceedings, and will not change the nature and character of the suit. In view of above, I do not find any merits to entertain the revision pet ition and hence it is dismissed.