S. Ravi Kumar, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against order dated 11.04.2016 passed in I.A.No.893 of 2015 in O.S.No.36 of 2010 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa.

2. Revision petitioner herein is 1st defendant and respondents 1 to 3 herein are plaintiffs in the above referred suit. Parties will be hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiffs' and 'defendants', as arrayed in the suit, for better understanding.

3. Plaintiffs filed I.A.No.893 of 2015 seeking amendment of plaint and that petition was initially allowed. Questioning the same, 1st defendant preferred revision and this Court, by order dated 16.11.2015 in CRP No.3838 of 2015, remitted back the matter to Court below directing the trial Judge to hear the application afresh and pass orders on merits, as per the observations made in that order. After remand, trial Judge passed the impugned order. Challenging the same, 1st defendant preferred the present revision.

4. Heard both sides.

5. Advocate for revision petitioner/1st defendant submitted that suit is filed in the year 2008 and amendment petition was filed after commencement of trial and as per the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ('the Code', for brevity) unless due diligence is shown, any amendment, after commencement of trial, is not permissible and this Court, while remitting the matter, directed the trial Judge to examine this aspect, but the trial Court has not at all dealt with that matter and decided the application, ignoring the fact that plaintiffs have not pleaded any diligence in the affidavit filed in support of amendment petition.

6. On the other hand, advocate for respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the Court below has decided the matter as per observation of this Court and answered them in paragraphs 9 to 11 of impugned order. He further submitted that since the extent in respect of 'B' schedule is wrongly typed and as it may lead to unnecessary complications and multiplicity of proceedings at the time of execution, plaintiff filed amendment petition and the Court below rightly permitted amendment and objection of 1st defendant is not at all tenable.

7. According to plaintiffs, extent of 'B' schedule is 15 cents, but it is wrongly typed as 10 cents and all boundaries for this 'B' schedule are correctly mentioned. So also in 'D' schedule, there is wrong mention of extent. This Court, while remitting the matter to Court below, observed as follows:-

"It is unknown how that proposition is applicable to the case on hand, even as from the order, at para No.7 last but 4th line speaks the factum of the suit originally filed in the year 2008 was numbered as O.S.No.57 of 2008 and later renumbered as O.S.No.36 of 2010. To say the suit is subsequent to the amendment. The learned judge should have observed that it has no application, but wrongly relied on a different foot."

8. This observation was made with reference to judgment relied on by trial Court with regard to application of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code. Here, as seen from record, there cannot be any ambiguity with regard to application of proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the code, since suit is filed in the year 2008 and amendment to Order VI came into force from 01.07.2002. As per the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, no application for amendment shall be allowed after trial is commenced, unless the Court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised this matter before commencement of trial.

9. In affidavit filed in support of the amendment petition, only ground urged for seeking amendment is that amendment will not change the nature of suit as well as the cause of action and it will avoid multiplicity of proceedings and that no prejudice will be caused to respondents. It is further stated in the affidavit that mistakes were crept in his previous advocate's office due to oversight and that mistake was brought to the notice of deponent during his cro