IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 59 of 2008 Date of decision: 20.3.2008 Uday Ram and another ..Petitioners Versus M/s Pankaj Spiners Ltd. and others ..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr.Deepak Kaushal, Advocate For the respondents: None Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) The petitioners filed a suit before the learned trial court in which it was claimed that they had not executed any General Power of Attorney in favour of Joginder Khanna and that the sale deed, if any executed by Joginder Khanna in favour of M/s Pankaj Spiners Ltd., was wrong, illegal, null and void and hence not binding on the plaintiffs-petitioners. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have moved an application for amendment of plaint wherein they sought to raise an alternative plea that even 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 if the sale deed is found to be valid, then also the sale amount alongwith interest, which has not been paid to them, be ordered to be paid. This application was rejected by the trial court mainly on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to show any cogent or valid reason why this relief has not been sought when the original suit was filed. The learned trial court also held that if the amendment of plaint is allowed, the trial court would have no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear or decide the suit. I am not going into the second issue since I feel that the learned trial court should have avoided commenting on this issue once it came to the conclusion that the application was not maintainable. The first and foremost requirement of order 6 Rule 17 CPC, as amended, is that a party seeking amendment must show that despite exercising due diligence it could not incorporate the amendment sought at the time of filing of pleadings. Except for making a bald plea that relief could not be sought at the earlier stage despite due diligence, the plaintiffs have failed to mention any reasonable cause in the application for not seeking this relief at the time when they filed the suit. On this short ground alone the amendment application filed at the 3 stage when the case was fixed for argument should not have been entertained. Consequently, I find no error in the order of the trial court and the petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. March 20, 2008(K) ( Deepak Gupta ), J.