10. By reading the aforesaid provision under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is clear that any amendment application filed by the parties before the commencement of trial. can be considered leniently by the court and the burden of proof will rust upon the party who takes any plea in the pleadings. In this present case, no trial has yet commenced. By going through the affidavit of an application, the objections, the pleadings and all the materials of the case on record, it is evident that there is a serious dispute between the parties regarding the title of the plaintiff over the schedule property. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the amendment sought by the plaintiff through the present application is necessary for determine the real question in controversy between parties. Moreover, the proposed amendment sought by the plaintiff does not create any new cause of action. Therefore, this court feels that an opportunity should be given to the parties to prove their contentions. If the application is allowed, no hardship will caused to the other side, and the contention taken by the defendants can be tested before the Court of law and which requires a full fledged trial. On these observations, this court is of the opinion that if the present application is not allowed, it will lead to multiplicity of the proceedings and the plaintiff will may be put to much hardship. As such, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to determine the real question between the parties, this court feels the present the application is deserve to be allowed.
