Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents, who appear by waiving notice on behalf of the respective respondents.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

3. Two orders dated 19/06/2018 and 13/07/2018 passed by the trial Court are under challenge in this petition. The last order dated 13/07/2018 is identical in nature to the order passed on 19/06/2018. The reason being that the last order also rejects the second application filed for amendment of the plaint for the same reason, based upon identical facts.

4. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present petition are : (i) the petitioner is the original plaintiff and the respondents are the original defendants, (ii) the petitioner filed a civil suit against the respondents on or about 19th June, 2015 claiming reliefs of Declaration and Permanent Injunction, (iii) the petitioner raised categorical pleas that he was in possession of suit land and that the respondents were disturbing his possession and (iv) the suit proceeded on such pleas and reached the stage of argument when the application for amendment was made for the first time.

5. Now, let us consider the nature of proposed amendments. The proposed amendments are for inserting pleas to the effect that the plaintiff (petitioner) was dispossessed by the defendants forcibly on 01/04/2015, that is before filing of the suit, and that a false complaint filed against the plaintiff under Sections 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code being R.C.C. No.89/2015 by the defendants (respondents) resulted in acquittal of the plaintiff on 18/11/2017 and that the possession of the suit land be handed over to the plaintiff.

6. These amendments were proposed to be made firstly on 17/03/2018 and when the application was rejected by the first order, dated 19/06/2018, they were once again proposed to be made on 07/07/2018, which effort was also rejected by the last order dated 13/07/2018. It is not in dispute that both these applications were filed at the time when the suit was fixed for arguments i.e. much after commencement of the trial. The proposed amendments would reveal that these facts were already well within the knowledge of the petitioner and, therefore, it was required of the petitioner to have explained as to why, in spite of due diligence on his part, he could not have made these averments at the time of filing of the suit or at least before commencement of the trial of the suit. The petitioner has not given any explanation for the same, except for the explanation that it was a mistake of drafting committed by the then Advocate. Reliance has also been placed by Shri Waghmare, learned Counsel for the petitioner, upon the case of Shanabhai Mangalbhai Patel & others vs. Bhagavanbhai Revabhai Patel & another, AIR 1990 Guj. 74.

7. I do not think that any assistance can be sought by the petitioner from the law laid down by the Gujarat High Court in the said case of Shanabhai. The reason being that, that was the case which was decided much before 2002 amendment to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure came into being. Even otherwise, mistake committed by an Advocate in drafting of the pleadings cannot be considered to be a reason enough for answering appropriately the due diligence test and something more is required to be stated by a party seeking the amendment to satisfy the Court on this count. If an explanation like the one being offered now is to be accepted by the Court, it would result in making Civil Courts allow almost all applications at any stage of the suit as it is always easier to say that there was drafting mistake than to explain as to why in spite of due diligence the pleading could not be raised earlier. Concept of due diligence applies to a party seeking amendment of pleadings and as an Advocate of party does everything on the instructions of the party which is his client, mistake committed by the Advocate in draftin