Mr. Pankaj Bhandari, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 02.09.2015 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) Nathdwara vide which applications filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC and Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of CPC were rejected.

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant forcefully put his lock on the premises belonging to the plaintiff-petitioner and the same was a subsequent event which was necessary for deciding the controversy in the suit. The plaintiff-petitioner moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17 to incorporate the same in their pleadings.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on AIR 2002 SC 3369 Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakunnu and Anr. and (2002) 3 SCC 605 Fritiz T.M. Clement & Anr. v. Sudhakaran Nadar & Anr. Reliance has also been placed on AIR 2004 SC 4102 Pankaja & Anr. v. Yellappa (D) by LRS. & Ors. and AIR 2006 SC 1647 Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. v. K.K. Modi & Ors.

4. In Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. v. K.K. Modi & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has placed reliance on (2001) 2 SCC 472, para 5 of which is reproduced as under :

"5. After referring to the judgments in Charan Das v. Amir Khan, AIR 1921 PC 50, L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd v. Jardine Skinner & Co., AIR 1957 SC 357, Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar, (1974) 2 SCC 393, Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, (1978) 2 SCC 91 and various other authorities, this court in B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameshwaran Pilla, (2000) 1 SCC 712 held: (SCC p.715, para 3) "3. The purpose and object of Order 6, Rule 17 CPC is allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just. The power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings in the interests of justice on the basis of guidelines laid down by various High Courts and this court. It is true that the amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and under all circumstances. But it is equally true that courts while deciding such prayers should not adopt a hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly in cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled- for multiplicity of litigation."

5. With relation to application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC, it is contended by counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant forcefully put his lock on the premises belonging to the plaintiff-petitioner, upon which, an FIR was lodged by the petitioner and after the police submitted charge-sheet against the defendant, the petitioner moved an application to take on record the copy of the charge sheet and related documents. It is contended that under Order 7, Rule 14 only leave of the court is required to be taken for producing documents and such document come into existence after framing of the issues, there was no justification for the court below to refuse to take the same on record.

6. Counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the writ petition. His contention is that after the amendment in Order 6, Rule 17 CPC w.e.f. 11.07.2002, a proviso has been inserted which bars allowing of application after the commencement of trial and the same can be allowed if 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. The thrust of the argument of the respondent is that the petitioner has not mentioned a single line with regard to due diligence and as to who prevented him from moving the application earlier.

7. It is contended that the FIR was lodged on 17.04.2011 and the application for amendment has been filed on 19.01.2013. It is contended that if the petitioner was dispossessed, the petitioner should have sough