Honble TATIA, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2). This appeal is directed against the order dated 21st Oct., 2003 by which the first appellate court after allowing the amendment of the plaint set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 1st Sept., 2001 and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for deciding the suit afresh after framing the issues de novo.

(3). Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below has committed serious illegality in allowing the amendment application because of the reasons that the appellants want to take absolutely contradictory plea by amending the plaint from the pleas, which they took originally. It is also submitted that the amendment has been sought by the plaintiff after inordinate delay and in view of the proviso added by amendment of the Civil Procedure Code to the Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the amendment can be allowed by the court upon finding that even after due diligence, the party could not raise the matter before the commencement of the trial. In this case, the plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint after the decision of the suit by the Trial Court and further more, the plaintiff did not submit appl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document