HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5134 of 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, in I.A.No. 1305 of 2007 in O.S.No. 946 of 2002 dated 03.07.2008. The petitioner herein is the first defendant in the Suit. A common written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants, including defendant Nos.4 and 5. On the death of the first respondent-plaintiff, her legal representatives were brought on record and, consequently, the plaint was sought to be amended in the year 2006. Thereafter, trial commenced in the year 2007 and PW.1 was examined in chief. The petitioner–first defendant herein filed an application, under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment of the written statement filed earlier. The Court below, by the order under revision, noted that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC required due diligence to be established by the party seeking amendment; similarly, defendant Nos.4 and 5 had earlier filed an application in I.A.No. 1128 of 2006, seeking amendment of the written statement, which was dismissed; they filed another application in I.A.No. 2846 of 2006 to receive the additional written statement which was also dismissed; and the first defendant filed the present I.A. seeking amendment of the written statement. The Court below concluded that the petitioner–first defendant did not show due diligence in filing the present I.A.; and had filed the application only after dismissal of the earlier applications in I.A.Nos. 2846 and 1128 of 2006 filed by defendant Nos.4 and 5 to receive the additional written statement and to amend the written statement respectively. Sri V.V.Anil Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the mere fact that the applications filed by defendants Nos.4 and 5, seeking amendment of the written statement, were dismissed would not justify dismissal of the present application filed by the petitioner who is the first defendant in the Suit; only the chief examination of PW.1 had been completed prior to the application, in I.A.No.1305 of 2007, being filed; the said witness had not even been cross-examined by them; and the petitioner–first defendant could not be penalized for the fault of his advocate in failing to represent the matter, more so when no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the written statement were permitted to be amended. Order VI Rule 17 CPC enables pleadings to be amended. Under the proviso thereunder, no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that, inspite of diligence, the party could not have sought amendment of pleadings before commencement of trial. Examination in chief of PW.1 would amount to commencement of trial, and it is only if the Court below had come to the conclusion that despite due diligence the first defendant could not file the written statement earlier in the Suit could the petitioner herein have been permitted to amend the written statement. The order of the Court below does not reflect any cause being shown by the petitioner–first defendant with regards due diligence on his part. All that was stated, in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., is that due to non-representation, the Court had forfeited the right of filing the additional written statement; the applications filed earlier by his sisters (defendant Nos. 4 and 5) to receive and permit amendment of the written statement had been dismissed by the Court; and the matter was posted for trial. The petitioner further stated that, if the written statement was amended, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents- plaintiffs since the matter was coming up for cross-examination of PW.1, and the proposed amended facts were necessary for the purpose of cross-examination. Let alone due diligence being established, the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. does not even state that the petitioner–first defendant could not file the written statement earlier despite due diligence on his part. The order under revision does not suffer from any infirmity necessitating interference in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:08-07-2010 usd