Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the dismissal of the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC:

• The petitioners filed a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to challenge the dismissal of their application for amendment of the plaint, which was originally filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the trial court. (!)
• The suit was filed in 2012 challenging a sale deed dated 26.10.2012, but the petitioners later sought to amend the plaint in 2019 to also challenge an earlier sale deed dated 05.09.2011. (!) [2]
• The trial court dismissed the amendment application on 03.08.2019, observing that the petitioners had not acted with due diligence given the timing of the request relative to the commencement of the trial. (!) [9]
• The respondents argued that the earlier sale deed was already referenced in the challenged 2012 deed, mentioned in the revenue records, pleaded in the written statement, and that the petitioners had ample opportunity to raise the issue before the trial commenced. [3]
• The court noted that the trial was deemed to have commenced when issues were framed on 06.03.2014, and the amendment application was filed in 2019, well after the petitioners had been given the last opportunity to conclude their evidence. [3][8]
• Under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, an application for amendment after the trial has commenced is only allowed if the party demonstrates due diligence and could not have raised the matter before the trial commenced. (!) [10]
• The court found that the facts supporting the amendment were within the knowledge of the petitioners prior to the commencement of the trial, meaning the requirement of due diligence was not met. [8]
• Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha, the court upheld the trial court's decision, noting that the High Court cannot act as a court of appeal and must exercise its superintendence powers sparingly. [4][12][13]
• Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed as meritless because the amendment was barred by the lack of due diligence under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. [5][14]

Judgment :

Vikas Bahl, J.

This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 03.08.2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana in case bearing No.CS-47615-2013 dated 06.08.2013 titled as 'Harbans Kaur and another Vs. Mohinder Singh and others' vide which an application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:-

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had filed a suit for declaration in the year 2012 to the effect that the sale deed dated 26.10.2012 executed by defendant No.l in favour of Madhu Jain, wife of Anoop Jain, is illegal, null and void. It is submitted that other prayers including the prayer for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction were also made. It is argued that subsequently, the petitioners came to know that sale deed dated 05.09.2011 was executed by defendant No.3 in favour