WPMS No. 1427 of 2009 Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned counsel for the petitioners. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 27.04.2009, passed by the trial court (Additional District Judge / Fast Track Court-IV, Dehradun), whereby the application for amendment moved by the plaintiff / respondent in Suit No. 379 of 2005; Rajkumar Aggarwal Vs. Rama Kant Aggarwal and others, has been allowed. Perusal of the impugned order and the papers on record show that the suit between the parties was for partition and declaration. The plaintiff sought an amendment by moving Amendment Application 138A before the trial court stating that some property allegedly owned by the parties has been inadvertently left out as the same was not in the knowledge of the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit. The trial court after hearing the parties allowed the Amendment Application 138A holding that the amendment sought is necessary for the just decision of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners / defendants pleaded that in view of proviso in the amended Rule 17 of Order 6 of C.P.C., the application should have been rejected by the trial court. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners / defendants and after going through the impugned order passed by the trial court, this Court finds that the trial court has allowed the application after holding that the plaintiff, though, should have moved the application for amendment earlier but the amendment is necessary for the just decision of the case, and as such the same can be allowed subject to payment of Rs.1,000/- as costs to the defendants. On the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find it a fit case for interference under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed summarily with the observation that the defendants are at liberty to raise the pleas including one relating to the cause of action in the additional written statement before the trial court against the amended pleas to safeguard their interest. (Misc. Stay Application No. 7384 of 2009 also stands dismissed). (P.C.P., J.) 31.08.2009 NS