Arun Bhansali, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against rejection of the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC by the trial court.

2. The petitioner by way of the proposed amendment, wanted to add additional plea regarding the documents in question which was the basis for filing the suit for specific performance that the same were not admissible in evidence on account of deficiency in payment of stamp duty.

3. The trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that on account of proviso to Rule VI, Rule 17 CPC, the application was not entertain able and consequently rejected the same.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application, inasmuch as, the objection was legal and could be raised at any stage.

5. It is further submitted that regarding the deficiency of stamp duty, the petitioner has filed revision petition under Section 71 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, which is pending consideration and, therefore, the hearing of the present writ petition may be deferred.

6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the bare look at the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC clearly shows that the petitioner has failed to make any averment whatsoever regarding compliance of proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC.

7. This Court in Meera Ben v. Amritlal and anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1669/2015 decided on 18.02.2015, after referring to two judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“From the above averments it is apparent that the petitioner has failed to indicate any reason whatsoever necessitating filing of the amendment application as required by proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC. The provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 CPC read as under:-

“17. 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.”

Under the proviso, an application seeking amendment after the trial has commenced cannot be allowed 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; for attracting the said provision, the minimum requirement in an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint after commencement of trial is that the applicant has to make out a case that despite due diligence the matter could not be raised before the commencement of the trial; however, in the present case, not a word has been indicated by the plaintiff in this regard.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyabai and ors. v. Padmalatha and anr. (2009) 2 SCC 409 while dealing with the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC observed as under:-

“10. ......It is couched in a mandatory form. The court's jurisdiction to allow such an application is taken away unless the conditions precedent therefor are satisfied viz. it must come to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.

11. From the order passed by the learned trial Judge, it is evident that the respondents had not been able to fulfill the said precondition. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is as to whether the trial had commenced or not. In our opinion, it did. The date on which the issues are framed is the date of first hearing. Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure envisage taking of various steps