CMPMO No. 38 of 2010 23.2.2010 Present: Mr. Subhash Sharma, counsel for the petitioners. CMPMO No. 38 of 2010. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 3.12.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kinnaur allowing the application of respondents/ plaintiffs filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint and another application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC for production of revenue record. The respondents wanted to amend the plaint by amending paras (a) and (b) of the plaint by inserting khasra numbers specifically mentioned in the application. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that suit was filed in the year 2007. He has also submitted that as per proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 CPC, 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 trial. In the application for amendment of the plaint, the respondents have specifically pleaded that in spite of due diligence they could not raise the matter earlier. It is true that the learned Civil Judge in the impugned order dated 3.12.2009 has not specifically observed regarding due diligence of the respondents in filing the applications. To this extent the impugned order is not as per Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, but in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that simply statutory words have not been used in the impugned order, therefore, the order is illegal. The entire facts and circumstances of the case are to be seen. The parties have not yet started their evidence, in that context the trial is at an early stage. The respondents by way of application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC have prayed only for insertion of certain khasra numbers in the plaint without changing the nature of the suit. No grievance has been raised regarding the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC except that such application was allowed alongwith amendment application. There is no illegality or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. There is no merit in the petition, therefore, the same is dismissed. CMP No. 78 of 2010. Infructuous. February 23, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.