CMPMO No.94 of 2008 24.4.2008 Present: Mr.Ajay Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. This petition is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Junior division), Court No.2, Amb dated 14.2.2008 whereby he has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint. It is not necessary to give the detailed facts of the case. It will be sufficient to mention that the plaintiff filed a suit claiming that the property of Sh.Balak Ram his grand father had been inherited by him, his father Gian Chand and his brothers Lekh Raj and Des Raj and they all had 1/6th share in the land in question. By means of the application for amendment, a prayer was made that the plaintiff only claims 1/8th share instead of 1/6th share and abandon the claim in respect of remaining land. This application has been rejected mainly on the ground that in view of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC this amendment could not have been allowed at this stage since the trial has commenced and the plaintiff has failed to show that he acted with due diligence. I have perused the application for amendment filed by the petitioner. The only ground given for not pleading the new facts at the stage of filing of the plaint is that the entire record was not available with the plaintiff. This itself shows lack of due diligence on the part of the plaintiff. There is not even a single averment in the application as to how the plaintiff acted with due diligence and still could not plead the facts at the time of filing of the suit. Even otherwise, I am of the opinion that a party can always during the course of the trial claim a lesser relief than what he had originally claimed as long as it does not affect the right of others. No amendment is necessary for this purpose. In view of the above discussion, the petition is rejected. April 24, 2008. (Deepak Gupta), PV Judge