On bare perusal of the aforesaid provision it is abundantly clear that the court is vested with all powers to allow such amendment at any stage of the suit if such amendment is required for determination of the dispute between the parties. Of course, the proviso of Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C. has been brought about by amendment in the year 2005 which says that court shall not allow such amendment 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. The suit is for eviction and the plaintiff has asserted that he has got title over the land. There was an agreement of tenancy between the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant also adduced evidence denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and put forth their claim that they have got title over the disputed land and on these facts the plaintiff thought it proper to seek amendment of relief for declaration of title and recovery of possession. In the eviction suit the question of title can be incidentally looked into but the court cannot record any finding with regard to title. If the plaintiff at any stage of suit for eviction feels that on the basis of evidence brought on record the relief is required to be amended, I am of the view that in the interest of justice and in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation such amendment should have been allowed avoiding the situation driving the plaintiff to file another suit for the same relief. The plaintiff does not want to bring any new facts after beginning of the trial or at the stage of argument of the case. The plaintiff simply wants to mould the relief by adding the relief for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Therefore, the proviso, in my view, cannot preclude a party to amend the relief of
