JUDGMENT

M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J. - This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.13.02.2020 passed in I.A.No.549 of 2019 in O.S.No.581 of 2007 on the file of the XIX Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad.

2. The petitioners herein are plaintiffs in the above suit.

3. They filed the said suit in the year 2007 for the following reliefs:

"(a) To vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit plaint schedule premises to the plaintiff;

(b) To pay the arrears of rent of Rs.52,500/- for the period from 01.01.2007 to 31.07.2007 at Rs.7,500/- p.m. with interest at 12 % per annum;

(c) To pay damages / mesne profits of Rs.5,000/- for the unauthorized use and occupation of the suit schedule property for the period from 01.08.2007 to 15.08.2007 at Rs.10,000/- p.m. with interest at 12% p.a.;

(d) To pay future damages for unauthorized occupation and use of the suit schedule property from the date of suit till delivery of vacant possession to the plaintiffs at Rs.10,000/- p.m. with interest at 12% p.a.;

(e) To pay costs of the suit; and

(f) To comply with such other relief or reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant under the circumstances of the case."

4. Written Statement was filed by the 1st respondent opposing the suit claim and denying that there was any relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and petitioners, and contending that he had obtained lease of the 1st floor portion of the building from one Mohd. Omer Asif under a Rental Agreement dt.01.07.2007 in which there was no mention of the 1st petitioner.

5. Pending suit, the 1st respondent also filed a Memo in the Court stating that he had handed over the suit schedule premises to the 2nd respondent.

6. The petitioners then filed I.A.No.549 of 2019 on 02.12.2019 to amend the plaint in the Writ Petition.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, they contended that the figure of regulating the rent mentioned in the plaint at Rs.7,500/- per month is incorrect, that the actual rent is Rs.11,700/- per month from 01.01.2007 to 31.07.2007; consequently, the claim in the suit is for a lesser monthly rent. It was admitted in the affidavit filed in support of the said application that the evidence of D.W.1 was already over and it was closed by the Court below on 29.11.2019 and the case was posted for hearing of arguments on 02.12.2019. Certain other amendments in the plaint in relation to the Court Fee were also mentioned, and it was contended that the suit must be reopened and the application for amendment of plaint should be allowed, and the petitioners must be allowed to again cross-examine D.W.1.

8. Counter-Affidavit was filed by the 1st respondent opposing this application, contending that he had already filed a Memo on 23.03.2010 informing the Court about handing over of vacant possession to the 2nd respondent; that he was depositing rent regularly at Rs.8,785/- from April, 2009 to 01.02.2010 as per the directions of the High Court and the instant petition was filed at the stage when the suit is ripe for arguments, and is not maintainable.

9. Reliance is placed on the Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 which bars the Court from permitting applications for amendment of pleadings after the trial commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party seeking amendment could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial. It is contended that the application filed by petitioners did not assign any valid reason and no due diligence is displayed by the petitioners for seeking amendment of the plaint after the trial started.

10. By order dt.13.02.2020, the Court below dismissed Interlocutory Application No.549 of 2019. It took note of the fact that a Memo was filed by the 1st respondent on 23.03.2010 about handing over of the vacant possession of the property to the 2nd respondent; that t