CRP 327/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR The petitioners (the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff) is aggrieved by the order dated 4/8/2010 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Karim ganj in Misc. Case No.90/2010 arising out of T.S. No.220/2007. The plaintiff had filed a suit for a declaration that he has land holder rights in respect of landed property as described in the schedule to the plaint . A prayer was also made for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants a nd their agents from entering into the landed property as described in the sched ule. During the pendency of the suit, a status quo order was passed but the d efendants allegedly made some constructions on the suit property. Consequently, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC. The applic ation is still pending. Thereafter the evidence on the plaintiff was recorded but before its com pletion, the plaintiff died. The legal heirs of the plaintiff (the petitioners herein) moved an appli cation on 15/6/2010 seeking to amend the plaint by adding a prayer to the effect that the defendants be asked to remove the illegally constructed structures on the suit property. The application was rejected by the learned Trial Judge vide the impugne d order dated 4/8/2010. The reason for rejecting the application was primarily b ecause of the proviso, to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, which postulates that an a pplication for amendment should not be allowed after trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence the party could no t have raised the matter before commencement of trial. In so far as the present case is concerned, the alleged construction had begun well before the trial commenced but inspite of this the plaintiff did not take any steps to amend the plaint. The application for amendment of the plaint was filed only after the plaintiff died and his legal heirs were brought on rec ord. Apart from the fact that the amendment is a stand-alone prayer without a ny pleading, I find that the learned Trial Judge is right in coming to the concl usion that the amendment should not be allowed under the provisions of the C.P.C . Surely, the plaintiff was aware of the alleged construction and yet allo wed the trial to commence without any amendments to the plaint. Clearly, the du e diligence clause stands in the way of the petitioners. Under the circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the order da ted 4/8/2010. However, the observations made in this order will not influence the Tria l Judge in taking any decision in the Suit filed by the petitioners. With the above observation, the revision petition is disposed of.