The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal approach in allowing amendments to avoid uncalled multiplicities of litigation and to minimize the litigation.

( 1 ) BY means of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 18. 12. 2003, passed by District Judge. Varanasi in Civil Revision No. Nil of 2003, Mehandi Hasan v. Abdul yatin, filed against the order of the IIIrd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Varanasi dated 1. 12. 2003, by which amendment application of the petitioner/defendant has been rejected. District Judge, Varanasi upheld the order of the Illrd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), varanasi.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner and others for restraining them from opening any door or window on the wall and the galiyaras in dispute not be used as rasta and they may also be restrained from damaging sewer situated in the land in dispute. Respondents No. 3 and 4 have alleged themselves to be the owner and in possession of the disputed galiyara. The suit filed by the respondents No. 3 and 4, was registered as Original suit No. 46 of 1988 before Munsif City. Varanasi. Petitioner filed written statement on 3. 10. 1991. Thereafter amendment application was moved on 4. 10 2001. The aforesaid amendment application has been rejected on the ground that the facts mentioned in the amendment application were available at the time of filing of written statement and the amendment application was moved after a long time. Civil Judge. (Junior Division), Varanasi was of the view that the permission to allow the amendment under Order VI, Rule 17, C. P. C. may not be justified. District Judge has rejected the revision on the ground that perusal of the application shows that by way of amendment, petitioner wanted to amend, that the property in dispute does not lie in plot No. 26/255. The disputed portion shown by letters A, B, C and D lies out of plot No. 26/255. This is a fact for which it cannot be said that the revisionist were not aware about it before the commencement of the trial. Perusal of the record shows that the issues were framed on 30. 7. 1997 and case was running for evidence of the parties and in the meantime, amendment application was moved on 4. 10. 2001. Thus, it is clear that the amendment application was moved after the commencement of the trial and according to the District Judge after amendment of the provisions of Order VI, Rule 17, C. P. C. the amendment cannot be allowed after the commencement of the trial unless Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. While in the present case it is apparent that if the revisionist have applied due diligence, they could have moved the above amendment application before the commencement of the trial. Accordingly, revision was dismissed.

( 3 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that by the amendment the nature of the defence has not been changed and only factual position has been incorporated. He submitted that both written statement as well as amendment application have been moved prior to the date of the insertion of the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17. C. P. C. , which was added w. e. f. 1. 7. 2002 by Act no. 22 of 2002. He submitted that by Act No. 22 of 2002 it has been clarified that the amendment made in Order VI, Rule 17. C. P. C. does not apply to the cases commenced before the amendment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that written statement was filed on 3. 10. 1991 and the amendment application was moved on 4. 10. 2001, almost after ten years. He submitted that the amendment sought to be made was within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing of the written statement itself and the amendment application has been moved just to delay the proceedings, after the commencement of the trial and, therefore, amendment has been rightly rejected.

( 5 ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties.

( 6 ) BEFORE the amendment, Order VI. Rule 17 of the Code of C