SUJOY PAUL, J.

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 29-2-2012 whereby the amendment application of the defendant dated 30-1-2012 was allowed by the Court below. Admittedly, the issues were framed in the year 2009 itself. Affidavits under Order 18, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code were filed on 9-11-2009. Thus, trial began way back in 2009. The singular question needs determination is whether after commencement of trial, the amendment application could have been allowed by the Court below when no due diligence was shown by the respondent/defendant in belatedly filing the amendment application?

2. Shri P.C. Chandil, Advocate for the petitioner relied on proviso to Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code and judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Vidyabai and Others Vs. Padmalatha and Another, (2009) 2 SCC 409

3. Per Contra, Shri M.B. Mangal and Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents relied on Pahelwan Singh and Others Vs. Leela Bai and Others, AIR 1998 MP 152, Baldev Singh and Others Etc. Vs. Manohar Singh and Another Etc., (2006) 6 SCC 498 and 2072 (III) MPWN 104 SC, Abdul Rehman v. Mohd. Ruldu.

4. I have