C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) I. A. NO. 60 of 2003 filed under Order 6 rule 17 read with Section 151 of C. P. C. seeking amendment of the written statement was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that permission to amend pleadings cannot be granted after commencement of the trial. Hence, this Revision.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT filed the suit for recoveryof possession of the plaint schedule property from the revision petitioners, alleging that the first petitioner who had taken the suit property on oral lease and is continuing in possession thereof as a tenant holding over is trying to induct third parties into possession thereof on the basis that he himself is the owner of the property. The first Petitioner filed his written statement denying the title of the respondent to the suit property and alleging that he prescribed title to the suit property by adverse possession.

( 3 ) AFTER the trial of the suit was taken up,revision petitioners filed I. A. No. 60 of 2003 seeking permission to incorporate a plea in the written statement of the 1st respondent (sic. petitioner) that the suit is not maintainable in the civil Court inasmuch the father of the 1st respondent (sic. petitioner) was a protected tenant in respect of the suit property and that the earlier plea relating to acquisition of title by long standing possession may be deleted.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT filed his countercontesting the petition. As stated earlier the petition was dismissed on the ground that pleadings cannot be permitted to be amended after the commencement of trial.

( 5 ) THE contention of the learned counselfor the revision petitioners is that the observation made by the learned trial Judge that the counsel for the petitioners was not present in the court is not correct and that the counsel for the revision petitioners in fact was there in the court hall and yet the trial Court for reasons not known to the petitioners, made such an observation in the order. It is his contention that the pleadings can be amended even after the commencement of trial when he is able to establish that in spite of his due diligence he could not raise such plea before the commencement of trial and since there was sufficient ground for the revision petitioners not raising the pleas now taken in the original written statement the order under revision is liable to be set aside.

( 6 ) RULE 17 of Order 6 C. P. C. as amendedby Act 22 of 2002 reads as under:"amendment of Pleadings: The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed 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. "

( 7 ) IT is therefore very clear that unless thecourt comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party seeking amendment could not have raised the plea intended to be taken, it should not allow amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial. First revision petitioner filed his written statement on 12-3-2001, taking a specific plea in Para 7 that even if the respondent (plaintiff) or his father had title to the suit property, they lost it by virtue of his adverse possession. When it is the specific case of the revision petitioners that they prescribed title to the suit property by adverse possession, it is clear that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between them. The affidavit filed in support of I. A. No. 60 of 2003 does not state anything as to how and when the petitioners came to know that the father of the first petitioner was a protected tenant in respect of the suit land. At this stage I feel it relevant to extract Para 1 of the affidavit filed in suppo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document