IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.234 of 2007 ----- Shail Devi, wife of Late Mahesh Rai, resident of Village Bidhupur, District- Vaishali -- Plaintiff no.10 –Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Collector, Vaishali Hazipur (Vaishali). 2. The District Magistrate, Vaishali, District-Hazipur. 3. D.C.L.R. Hazipur, Vaishali. 4. Anchal Adhikari (Circle Officer), Anchal- Bidhupur, P.S. Bidhupur, District-Vaishali. 5. Block Development Officer, Bidhupur Block, P.S.Bidhupur, District-Vaishali. 6. Arun Kumar Prasad son of note known, Janshavak, Gram Panchyat, Bidhupur, P.O. and P.S.- Bidhupur, District- Vaishali. -- Defendants no.1 to 6-Opposite parties 1st Set. 7. Ram Ekbal Rai 8. Ram Dayal Rai 9. Kameshwar Rai Sl nos. 7 to 9 are sons of Late Karu Rai 10. Vishwanath Rai 11. Braj Nath Rai 12. Devnath Rai 13. Arbindh Rai Sl. Nos. 10 to 13 are sons of Late Radhey Rai 14. Singhswasr Rai 15. Nandeshwar Rai Sl. Nos.14 and 15 are sons of Late Nima Rai 16. Sarbash Kumar 17. Chandni Kumari 18. Rupa Kumari Sl. Nos. 16 to 18 are minor children of Late Mahesh Rai under guardianship of their mother Shail Devi. All are resident of Bidhupur, P.S. and P.O. Bidhupur, District- Vaishali. -Plaintiffs 1 to 9 and 11 to 13-Opposite Parties 2nd Set. ----- For the petitioner : M/s Veena Rani Prasad, Sandeep Patil and Vishal Sourav, Advocates. For the opposite parties: None. ---- 02. 08.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision has been filed by plaintiff no.10 – petitioner challenging order dated 20.12.2006 by which learned Subordinate Judge VII, Hazipur (Vaishali) rejected her application - 2 - under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint of Title Suit No.355 of 2002. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs (petitioner) and opposite parties no.7 to 18 on 18.08.2002 for declaration of their title with respect to their suit lands and for other ancillary reliefs including the relief of injunction. 4. It is not in dispute that the defendants appeared and contested the suit, whereafter issues were framed and on those issues evidences were led by the parties and arguments started and the argument of the defendants was closed and the arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs were also heard in part on two dates and only thereafter the said application dated 13.11.2006 was filed on behalf of plaintiff no.10 only for amendment of the plaint which has been rejected by the learned court below by the impugned order. 5. The amended provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has come into force on 01.07.2002 and hence it will be applicable to the instant suit which was filed much thereafter. According to the said amended provision 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 the trial. In the instant case, the plaintiff has miserably failed to satisfy the court by any reliable or trustworthy statement or material to show that in spite of due diligence he could not raise the matter before the commencement of the trial. Furthermore, the amendments sought are of such nature which would seriously prejudice the claims - 3 - and evidence led by the defendants and would amount to bringing out a new case requiring practically a re start of the trial which cannot be legally allowed in the facts and circumstances of this case as well as the specific provision of law. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)