CRP 70/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY Heard Mr. PK Deka, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. BK Sar ma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. By this revision petition, the plaintiff/petitioner has challenged the order dat ed 24.01.2011, passed by the Court of learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Misc(J) Case No.679 of 2010. The plaintiff/petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with S ection 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint and for addition of the parties. The petitioner, by way of amendment of the plaint, prayed for incorporation of c ertain averments and declaration to the effect that the Sale Deed No.706/05, exe cuted by the defendant No.2 in favour of Azima Bibi is fraudulent, illegal, void and inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff-petitioner. The petitioner fur ther prayed for impleading Musst. Azima Bibi as defendant No.3 in the suit. The amendment has been sought for on behalf of the petitioner in order to adjudicate the issues involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. Learned trial Court rejected the petition for amendment of the plaint on the gro und that the petitioner failed to show diligence in filing the application for a mendment in time, which was against the proviso of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents/OPs in order to deprive the petitioner from her legitimate share over the ancestral property had disowned her as their uterine sister and even the natural mother of the petitioner had also disowned her as her daughter. Mr. Deka, by referring to the written statement filed by the defendants-respondents pointed out that thou gh in the written statement, an indication was made by the defendant-respondent No.2 that the suit land was given to his wife as ’moharar’ in the marriage and t he defendant had subsequently executed a registered deed in the name of his wife Azima Bibi in pursuance of his verbal promise, but the deed number was not ment ioned in the written statement, and, as such, the petitioner could not take appr opriate steps in time for amendment of the plaint. It may be mentioned here that the petition for amendment of the plaint has been filed by the petitioner when the suit was posted for delivery of judgment. Mr. BK Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents in reply to the above contenti on submitted that the petition for amendment has been filed at the last stage of the proceeding, when the recording of the evidence of witnesses is completed an d the case was fixed for delivery of judgment. Learned counsel for the defendant s/OPs has further pointed out that the lack of diligence on the part of the peti tioner is apparent on the face of the record. Learned counsel pointed out that t he petitioner, if at all had desired to obtain the information regarding the exe cution of the deed and the number of deed thereof, executed by the defendant/ re spondent No.2 as reflected in his written statement, as far back as on November, 2005, appropriate steps could have been taken by the petitioner to obtain such information. As per provisions of Order XI of the CPC, the petitioner could have filed interrogatory petition, in terms of the above provision of law, which wou ld have compelled the respondent/Opp. Party to furnish such information, and the refore, filing of an application for amendment of the plaint after 5 years, at t he fag end of the suit, would defeat the ends of justice. Learned counsel for th e respondent submitted that the explanation of due diligence made on behalf of t he petitioner is not reasonable and justified to warrant an order as sought for. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1957 SC 357 : LJ Leach & Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Mers srs. Jairdine Skinner & Co. has submitted that the power of the Court can be exe rcised in the interest of justice. The relevant extract of the decision reads as follows: 16. It is no doubt true that Courts would, as a rule, decline to allow amendmen ts, if a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred by limitation on the da te of the application. But that is a factor to be taken into account in exercise of the discretion as to whether amendment should be ordered, and does not affec t the power of the Court to order it, if that is required in the interest of jus tice. In Charan Das. V. Amir Khan, 47 Ind App. 255 : (AIR 1921 PC 50) (A) the Pr ivy Council observed: That there was full power to make the amendment cannot be disputed and though s uch a power should not as a rule be exercised where the effect is to take away f rom a defendant a legal right which has accrued to him by lapse of time, yet the re are cases where such considerations are out-weighed by the special circumstan ces of the case. There is absolutely no dispute regarding the power of the Court to allow a prayer for amendment as emphasized in the above direction of the Apex Court i n LJ Leach (supra), but the facts and circumstances in the presence case is not similar and the issue under consideration is also different. However, the question, which arose for consideration in this case, is wh ether the explanation of exercise of due diligence by the petitioner in terms of the provision of order VI Rule 17 CPC is acceptable. Admittedly, the plaintiff/petitioner had the knowledge of transfer of the land i n question about 5 years before. Though no details of information regarding the deed was apparent on the written statement as stated by the petitioner, but ther e was absolutely no effort on the part of the plaintiff/petitioner to discern th e truth and to find out the facts. Neither any interrogatory application was mad e, or any inquiry at her own level, has been shown to have been made. As rightly indicated in the case of Eastern Business(P) Ltd. Vs. Manika Dhar, (2 009) 2 GLT 785, the due diligence reasonably expected from and ordinarily exerci sed by a person who seeks to satisfy a legal requirement or to discharge an obli gation is not apparent in the action of the petitioner. The relevant observation s made by this Court in Manika Dhar(supra) reads as follows: 21. As observed, by the Apex Court in Sale Bar Association(supra) the object of the amendment of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which, to som e extent curtails the absolute discretion of the court to allow amendment at any stage, is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial. 22. Due diligence’ has not been defined in the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordi ng to the Black’s Law Dictionary is-the diligence reasonably expected from and o rdinarily exercised by, a person who seeks to satisfy a legal requirement or to discharge an obligation, which is also termed as reasonable diligence or common diligence. ’Due diligence’, therefore, is such watchful caution and foresight as the circumstance of a particular case demands. The meaning of ’due diligence’ w ould, therefore, for the purpose of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Proced ure differs from case to case and has to be decided on the facts of a particular case. Apparently, the petitioner did not approach the trial Court seeking such amendment for long five years, i.e. after filing of the written statement by th e defendant. Now, the explanation of diligence as discussed above can not reason ably explain the delay caused by the petitioner to approach the Court seeking am endment of the plaint at the last stage of the litigation. Apparently, the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC do not permit a party to appr oach the Court for amendment of the plaint, if the party praying for amendment c annot establish that such petition could not be raised at the appropriate time a nd there was no lack of diligence. Though such an order at the fag end of the li tigation would deprive the parties from reaping the fruit of long drawn litigati on, but this would not have stopped the Court from giving the relief sought for, if the petitioner would have been found diligent in his action. Apparently, all owing the application of the petitioner for amendment, in the facts and circumst ances, would be against the provisions of Or. V, Rule 17. In view of the above discussions, I find no merit in the prayer of the p etitioner, and accordingly, the revision petition, stands dismissed. However, I pass no order as to costs.