1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer :-

“1. Quash the order dated 07.10.2013.

2. The application of the respondents filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC may kindly be ordered to be rejected.

3. Any other appropriate order, which deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner-defendant.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondents had filed the civil suit seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners in respect of a plot situated at Swarupganj. The suit was filed in 2005 whereas the written statement was filed by the defendant on 18.02.2006. The issues were framed on 29.03.2007 and the proceedings carried on thereafter. The respondent plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment in the plaint on two counts. The first count was that the parameters describing the surroundings of the property were to be rectified. Secondly, the amendment sought is that the possession has been taken by the petitioner defendant before 28.10.2005.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has clearly pointed out that the suit of 2005 where the issues were already framed cannot be sought to be amended on the ground of a particular event that has taken place before 28.10.2005 as in the application itself, the respondent has failed to show the due diligence on the part of the plaintiff. The order 6 Rule 17 reads as follows :-

“17. Amendment of Pleadings.- the Court may at any stage at 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.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has harped upon the facts that on a bare reading of the application, the due diligence on the part of the plaintiff respondent is not reflected.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Meera Ben (Smt.) Vs. Amritlal & anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1669/2015) decided on 18.02.2015. The relevant portion of this judgment reads as follows :-

“Admittedly, in the present case the plaint was filed on 22.02.2010, the written statement was filed on 29.05.2010, the replication was filed on 25.03.2011, whereafter the affidavits of three witnesses were filed by the plaintiff and, till that stage, the petitioner continued to claim the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- as a consideration in the alternative for the sale deeds executed by defendant No.1; however, the application was filed after the affidavits were filed seeking to amend the alternative plea enhancing the same from Rs. 3,50,000/- to 18,00,000/-.

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 VI, Rule 17 CPC. The provisions of Order VI, 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 con