The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the 2002 Amendment Act, which restricts the allowance of amendments after the trial has commenced.

Inveighing the order dated 112. 2005 passed in I.A.No.365 of 2005 in O.S.No.98 of 2005 by the District Munsif, Ranipet, this civil revision petition is focussed.

2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus:

The respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No.98 of 2005 before the District Munsif, Ranipet, seeking the following reliefs:-

Tamil

The revision petitioners/defendants filed the written statement. The trial proceeded, both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence, thereupon arguments were advanced and the O.S. was posted for judgement. In the meanwhile, I.A.No.365 of 2005 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. seeking permission of the Court to implead as 6th defendant one association, namely, @thHg;ge;jy; fpuhk kltpshf br;Fe;j rKjha r;fk;@/ The revision petitioners herein filed the counter resisting the application. However, the said I.A.was allowed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision petition is focussed on various grounds.

3. Mr.Ganapathy, representing Mr.R.Margabandhu, appearing for the revision petitioners would advance his argument, placing reliance on the grounds of revision, to the effect that as per Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it is obtaining after the recent amendment of the Civil Procedure Code, there is no possibility of allowing such amendment of the plaint at the fag end of the suit. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing the revision petition by setting aside the order passed by the lower Court in the I.A.

4. Indubitably and unassailably the I.A.No.365 of 2005 was filed when the matter was posted for judgement; the written statement was filed by the revision petitioners/defendants long ago and there upon alone the parties proceeded with the trial. In the written statement itself, the defendants 1 to 4 raised the contention that the suit would not lie as against the defendants 1 to 4 as the defendants could not execute the sale deed when the patta for the suit property stands in the name of Samudhayam. The plaintiff simply kept quite. The defendants also raised various pleas in the written statement as to how the agreement to sell is not tenable.

5. At this juncture my mind is reminiscent and redolent of the following decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in 2008(4) TLNJ 588(CIVIL)- VIDYABAI AND OTHERS VS. PADMALATHA AND ANOTHER, certain excerpts from it would run thus:

"7. By reason of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 22 of 2002), the Parliament inter alia inserted a proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, which reads as under:

"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."

It is couched in a mandatory form. The courts jurisdiction to allow such an application is taken away unless the conditions precedent therefore 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.

8. From the order passed by the learned Trial Judge, it is evident that the respondents had not been able to fulfill the said pre-condition. 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 at different stages of the proceeding. Filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the witness, in our opinion, would amount to commencement of proceeding.

9. Although in a different context, a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India an