1. - Heard learned counsels for the parties.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant,challenging the order dated 23.7.2012, passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Karauli,(hereinafter referred to as the trial court), in Civil Suit No. 16/2007, whereby the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner seeking amendment in the written statement under Or. VI R. 17 read with Or. VII R. 7.

3. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent No. 2-original plaintiff, has filed the suit against the petitioner-defendant seeking specific performance of agreement dated 30.1.1992. The said suit has been contested by the petitioner-defendant by filing the written statement. The trial court after considering the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and proceeded further with the trial. After completion of the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff, the petitioner submitted the application seeking amendment in the written statement under Or.VI R. 17 of C.P.C. The said application has been rejected by the trial court vide impugned order dated 23.7.2012.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel Mr. Hari Kishan Sharma, for the petitioner that certain events had taken place after the filing of the written statement which were required to be brought on record and certain issues with regard to the provisions contained in Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act, were also required to be framed by the trial curt and, therefore, the application was submitted by the petitioner. According to him, the subsequent events sought to be brought on record were not possible to be brought on record when the written statement was filed and hence the application seeking amendment was required to be allowed. He has also submitted that the agreement in question was not possible to be specifically performed in view of acquisition of part of the land in question and the respondent-plaintiff having not specifically relinquished his right in respect of the said lands in view of Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act, the respondent plaintiff was not entitled to obtain the decree for specific performance as prayed for and for other reliefs prayed for in the suit.

5. However, the learned counsel Mr. Ravi Bhojak, for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that the application seeking amendment in the written statement, was submitted by the petitioner-defendant only with a view to delay the proceedings. According to him the issue with regard to Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), being legal issue, there was no need to make specific averment in the plaint and even otherwise in the prayer clause it was impliedly made clear that the respondent- plaintiff was not asking for the specific performance of the agreement in respect of those lands which were already acquired by the govt. as the respondent had prayed for the compensation in respect of the said lands. He also submitted that the amendment sought is neither necessary nor permissible in view of the proviso contained in Or. VI R. 17 of C.P.C. and the trial court has rightly rejected the said application of the petitioner.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the impugned order passed by the trial court, it appears that the petitioner-defendant had submitted an application seeking amendment in the written statement under Or. VI R. 17 after the completion of the evidence of the plaintiff. It is true that the said application sought to be given by the petitioner after the evidence of respondent plaintiff was over,should not be normally entertained by the Court, when the petitioner-defendant had failed to make out the case that inspite of due diligence, he could not have raised this matter before the commencement of trial, in view of the proviso to Rule 17 of Or. VI of C.P.C. However, so far as the facts of present case are c