IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18438 of 2011 Kalo Devi Versus Most. Phulo Devi & Ors ---------------------------------- 03. 16.11.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff petitioner against the order dated 4.8.2011 passed by Sub Judge-3, Samastipur in Title Suit No. 33 of 1998 whereby the learned court below allowed the amendment application filed by the defendants respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after amendment of Order 6 Rule 17 a proviso has been added to the effect that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. So far this submission is concerned, in my opinion, has got no force because the provision has been added in the Order 6 Rule 17 by reason of Section 12 sub-section 2 clause (b) of C.P.C. Amendment Act No. 22 of 2002 w.e.f. 1.7.2002 and there is specific provision that the amendment will apply in respect of the suits which are filed after 1.7.2002 and not prior to the said insertion of provision. This position has been clarified by the Apex Court in (2007) 1 SCC 765 and also in (2009) 12 SCC 689. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below relying upon a decision of this Court reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 164 has allowed the amendment application finding that the amendments sought for are necessary for the determination of real controversy between the parties. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and, therefore, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)