THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1848 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 03.11.2009 in I.A.No.14 of 2009 in A.S.No.13 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasthi, wherein the said application filed by the 1st respondent herein/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of plaint, was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.200/-. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.881 of 2001 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land. The petitioner herein filed suit O.S.No.755 of 2001 for relief of declaration and permanent injunction. By a common judgment, the trial Court decreed the suit O.S.No.755 of 2001 filed by the petitioner and dismissed the suit O.S.No.881 of 2001 filed by the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent filed two appeals i.e. A.S.Nos.12 and 13 of 2008. During the pendency of the said appeals, the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.114 of 2009 seeking amendment of the plaint so as to pray for the relief of declaration and also permanent injunction, and also similarly amend the grounds of appeal. According to the 1st respondent, the trial Court held that the entries in the revenue records in her favour show her possession, but they will not create any right in her favour. Therefore, she seeks to amend the plaint by adding the relief of declaration of title. The petitioner herein opposed the said application by filing a counter contending that the entries in revenue records cannot prove title and the 1st respondent herein has not filed any document evidencing her title and in the absence of any such material, she is not entitled to seek relief of declaration and the proposed amendment would change the nature and character of the suit and would cause prejudice to the petitioner herein. The learned Senior Civil Judge, by impugned order, allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent in the appeal filed the present revision. 4. It is not disputed that the two suits relate to the same subject matter and the suit O.S.No.755 of 2001 filed by the petitioner herein for declaration of title was decreed besides granting the relief of injunction, whereas the suit O.S.No.881 of 2001 filed by the 1st respondent for bare injunction, was dismissed. When the petitioner herein has denied title of the 1st respondent and, on the other hand, set up the title in herself and also filed the suit for declaration of her title, there is absolutely no reason as to why the 1st respondent herein has not chosen to amend the plaint during the pendency of the suits. She went to trial, content with seeking relief of bare injunction, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner herein was claiming title to the suit land. The present application for amendment is filed only during the pendency of the appeal, on the ground that the trial Court made an observation in the judgment that the revenue entries merely show the possession, but not title. It is a well-established proposition of law that the entries in the revenue records do not confer any title nor evidence any title. The said observation made by the trial Court in the judgment does not, therefore, afford valid or sufficient ground for seeking amendment. Further, permitting such an amendment would certainly alter the nature and character of the suit so drastically as would cause prejudice to the petitioner herein. It is not a case where, on account of any subsequent events, the amendment came to be necessitated. The 1st respondent was aware of denial of her title by the petitioner. The other suit O.S.No.755 of 2001 was filed by the petitioner. In spite of such knowledge, the 1st respondent has not exercised any diligence to seek amendment of the plaint by adding the relief of declaration of title. 5. Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, as amended by Act 22 of 2002, bars entertaining any applications for amendment 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 said matter before the commencement of trial. 6. I n CHANDER KANTA BANSAL v. RAJINDER SINGH ANAND[1], the Apex Court observed: “The entire object of the amendment to Order 6 Rule 17 as introduced in 2002, is to stall filing of application for amending a pleading subsequent to the commencement of trial, to avoid surprises and that the parties had sufficient knowledge of the other’s case. It also helps in checking the delays in filing the applications. Once, the trial commences of the known pleas, it will be very difficult for any side to reconcile. In spite of the same, an exception is made in the newly inserted proviso where it is shown that in spite of due diligence, the party could not raise a plea, it is for the court to consider the same. Therefore, it is not a complete bar nor shuts out entertaining of any later application. The reason for adding proviso is to curtail delay and expedite hearing of cases.” “The proviso limits the power to allow amendment after the commencement of trial but grants discretion to the court to allow amendment if it feels that the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial in spite of due diligence. It is true that the power to allow amendment should be liberally exercised. The liberal principles which guide the exercise of discretion in allowing the amendment are that multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided, that amendments which do not totally alter the character of an action should be granted, while care should be taken to see that injustice and prejudice of an irremediable character are not inflicted upon the opposite party under pretence of amendment. So whether a party has acted with due diligence or not, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. This would, to some extend, limit the scope of amendment to pleadings, but would still vest enough powers in courts to deal with the unforeseen situations whenever they arise.” 7. In ‘Vidyabai v. Padmalatha[2]’, the apex Court held as follows: “…By reason of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 22 of 2002), the Parliament inter alia inserted a proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, which reads as under: "Provided that 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." It is couched in a mandatory form. The court's jurisdiction to allow such an application is taken away unless the conditions precedent therefor are satisfied, viz., it must come to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.” 8. In ‘N.Pandey v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji[3]’ and it was further held as follows: “…However, proviso appended to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the Court. It puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction. The Court’s jurisdiction, in a case of this nature is limited. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment of the plaint.” 9. In the above case, it was reiterated that the trial is deemed to be commenced when the case stood adjourned for recording of evidence. It was further held that the Court’s jurisdiction to allow such an application is taken away unless the conditions precedent there-for are satisfied. In the present case, apart from the fact that the petition for amendment is highly belated, the 1st respondent has failed to establish that in spite of due diligence the said plea could not be raised earlier. On the other hand, the 1st respondent was not at all diligent at the relevant time when the suit was pending and her failure to raise the proposed amendment during the pendency of the suit is inexplicable. The observation made by the trial Court in the impugned judgment that the entries in the revenue records did not confer any title is only a re-statement of an established proposition of law and the same does not give rise to any cause of action for seeking the proposed amendment. Further, the proposed amendment totally alters the nature and character of the suit and would certainly cause prejudice to the case of the petitioner. 10. In ‘Yellapu Damayanthi v. Polamarasetti Hemalatha[4]’, this Court confirmed the order of dismissal of the application for amendment in the light of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC holding that such amendment of written statement was not permissible after commencement of the trial when said plea was within the knowledge of the defendants even prior to commencement of the trial. 11. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions, and in view of the bar contained in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the application for amendment filed by the 1st respondent is not maintainable as it is not a case where the 1st respondent could not have raised the said plea earlier in spite of due diligence. The impugned order, allowing the proposed amendment, is wholly unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 12. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 20th October, 2011 KSM [1] (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 117 [2] AIR 2009 SC 1433 [3] (2006)12 SCC 1 [4] 2011(4) ALD 627