The amendment of pleadings after trial commencement requires proven due diligence, which was not established in the case, leading to dismissal of the request.

JUDGMENT

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 02.05.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sabroom, South Tripura in case No. Civil Misc. 05 of 2022 arising out of TS 02 of 2016.

2. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court declined to allow the amendment of written statement proposed by the defendants mainly on the ground that the petition was filed at a very belated stage after the recording of the evidence of defendants' witnesses was complete and the defendants could not come out with any material to convince the Court that in spite of due diligence, they could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. By the proposed amendment, the defendants wanted to incorporate the particulars of some sale-deeds in their written statement. The trial Court disbelieved the statement of the defendants that they were unaware of those documents before the commencement of trial because it was clearly pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiffs jointly sold out some land to one Thakur Das Banik and Smt. Namita Saha and Dinabandhu Saha by executing those sale-deeds. The learned trial Court was viewed that since the plaint contained such pleadings, the defendants who were served with copies of the plaint at the initial stage of the suit, could have easily made necessary pleadings in this regard in their written statement. The trial Court also held that if the particulars given in the plaint were not enough for the defendants to collect those deeds, they could have applied to the Court for an order requiring the plaintiffs to produce those documents before the Court from their possession but, for the reasons best known to them, the defendants did not exercise such option.

3. Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-petitioners contends that the amendment sought for is absolutely necessary for proper adjudication of the suit. According to learned counsel, the trial Court did not appreciate the fact that though the plaintiffs mentioned about the alleged sale transaction in their plaint, they did not mention the sale-deed number and other material particulars of those deeds. As a result, the defendants could not collect those sale-deeds at the appropriate time. It is submitted that soon after the defendants collected the sale-deeds, they moved the Court seeking amendment of the written statement. According to learned counsel, the said amendment would in no way change the nature and character of the suit and moreover, the amendment is absolutely necessary to bring those documents into evidence for a just decision of the case. Counsel, therefore, urges the Court to allow the defendants to amend their pleading by setting aside the impugned order.

4. Mr. Ratan Datta, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondents has raised serious objection against the contentions made by the counsel of the petitioners. Having referred to the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short), counsel submits that under the said proviso, 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 the trial. Counsel contends that the proviso to Rule 17 restricts the power of the Court in entertaining the amendment petition. It is contended by Mr. Datta, learned counsel that the defendants were allowed to amend their written statement several times before and after the issues were framed. Moreover, the plaintiffs categorically pleaded in their plaint that they entered into the sale transactions by executing sale-deeds and the names and particulars of the vendees were also mentioned in the