IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8534 of 2011 RAM SWAROOP DAS. Versus UMA DEVI & ANR . Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. S.M. Shabbir Alam, Advocate. ----------- 07. 17.05.2011 By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.01.2009 passed by Sub-Judge-I, Munger, in Title Suit No.114 of 2005 by which the application of the defendants has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial-court has not given any reason to come to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the defendant could not raise the application for amendment. Learned counsel for the respondents Sri S.M. Sabbir Alam failed to point out the reason from the impugned order as required to be recorded under the proviso appended to Rule-17 of Order-VI. Perusal of impugned order shows that no reason has been recorded by the trial-court to exercise the power under the proviso as the trial has commenced and the 2 evidence of the plaintiff has closed and evidence of one witness of the defendant has been examined and second is being examined. Thus, the impugned order is hit by the provision appended to Rule-17 of Order-VI C.P.C. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial-court may be directed to decide the application afresh in accordance with the proviso appended to Rule-17 of Order-VI. The submission is fair. The trial-court is directed to decide the application afresh in view of the provisions contained in the proviso appended to Rule-17 of Order-VI. Mkr. ( Prakash Chandra Verma, J. )