ORDER :

M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 07.03.2019 passed in I.A. No. 858 of 2018 in O.S. No. 376 of 2016 by the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, whereby, the petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code (for short "C.P.C.") to amend the written statement, was dismissed.

2. The petitioner is the sole defendant and filed petition under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. on the ground that on receipt of summons from the Court without receiving any document i.e. document sued upon annexed to the list of documents, engaged counsel and filed written statement. As the agreement of sale is created by the plaintiff, the petitioner advised his counsel to get the agreement of sale filed by the plaintiff and his counsel obtained the same along with his written statement and informed him that the suit coming up for cross-examination of P.W. 1. Later, the petitioner approached his counsel and verified the agreement of sale and came to know that the alleged attestors and scribe of agreement of sale are kith and kin of the plaintiff and fabricated the same for wrongful gain. Therefore, he sought leave of the Court to raise a plea of fabrication of document.

3. Respondent - plaintiff opposed the petition on various grounds by filing detailed counter.

4. The trial Court after taking note of pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, dismissed the petition holding that there are no grounds to allow the petition.

5. Aggrieved by the order, the present revision is filed mainly on the ground that the trial Court did not appreciate the specific contention of the petitioner in proper perspective and the trial Court ought to have permitted the petitioner to raise such plea.

6. During hearing, Sri V. Nitesh, learned counsel for, the petitioner, reiterated the contentions urged in the petition.

7. Sri O. Udaya Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, opposed the petition on the ground that the amendment cannot be permitted at this stage, as the trial is already commenced in view of the bar to proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.

8. It is not in dispute that the respondent - plaintiff filed suit for specific performance based on agreement of sale and the petitioner/defendant in paragraph No. 11 of the written statement raised a plea that the agreement of sale is forged and created one for the purpose of filing the above suit. Now, the petitioner intended to raise a specific plea that the suit document i.e. agreement of sale is fabricated, on the ground that the agreement of sale was not verified at the time of filing of written statement, but verified only after cross-examination of P.W. 1.

9. Even if all the allegations made in the affidavit are accepted coupled with the plea raised in paragraph No. 11 of the written statement, the petitioner already raised a specific plea that the document is created. There is no much difference between fabrication and creation. Even otherwise, the petitioner is disentitled to claim relief under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. as the trail is already commenced and failed to explain that despite due diligence, she could not bring those facts on record.

10. Normal rule is that the amendment can be allowed at any stage, prior to amendment to C.P.C. However, by proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of C.P.C., an interdict is created, according to it, no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has been commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the plea before the commencement of trial.

11. When the law permits amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, even in the first appellate or second appellate stage, the parties can be permitted to amend their pleadings. But, in view of the amendment to Civil Procedure Code by Act No. 22 of 2002, a proviso is added to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., which disabled the parties to