Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. versus M/s S.K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., held that the grant of an application for amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code is subject to specific conditions, particularly when the amendment changes the nature of the case, introduces a new cause of action, prejudices the other party, or defeats the law of limitation (!) (!) .
• The Court clarified that while pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally to determine the real questions in controversy, amendments sought after the commencement of the trial (especially after evidence is closed) require the applicant to satisfy the proviso to Order VI Rule 17, which mandates showing that the matter could not have been raised earlier despite due diligence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• In the specific facts of this case, the plaintiff was fully aware of the possession and mining operations by the second defendant (M/s Sarwagi & Co.) prior to filing the suit, as evidenced by a reply notice and the written statement of the first defendant which detailed government orders leasing the land (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Despite having this knowledge before the trial commenced, the plaintiff failed to implead the second defendant or amend the plaint to seek possession and damages at that appropriate time. Instead, the plaintiff proceeded with the trial, examined witnesses, and only applied for amendment during the stage of arguments (!) (!) (!) (!) .
• Consequently, the Court ruled that the plaintiff's action of seeking amendment at the argument stage could not be permitted because they failed to adhere to the recourse at the appropriate time and failed to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 (!) (!) .
• The appeal filed by the appellant against the High Court's order setting aside the District Court's amendment order was dismissed as it had no merit, confirming the High Court's decision that the amendment application was rightly rejected (!) (!) (!) .