IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.562 of 2009 Bijay Kumar Kedia, son of Shri Jagdish Prasad Kedia, resident of Village Bhawanipur, P.S. Bhawanipur, District- Purnea ---- Plaintiff--- Petitioner. Versus Pali Ram Kedia, son of late Badri Lal Kedia, resident of Village- Bhawanipur, P.S. Bhawanipur, District- Patna ---- Defendant --- Opposite Party. ---------------------------------- 5. 24.11.2011 Heard Mr. S. D. Sanjay for the petitioner, and Mr. Raj Kamal for the opposite party. The plaintiff of Title Suit No. 133 of 2003 has preferred this civil revision application under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and is aggrieved by the order dated 13.3.2009, whereby his application for amendment of the plaint has been rejected. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The present petitioner has instituted a suit for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of accounts. After one witness was examined, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint. The proposed amendment is reproduced hereinbelow: “(i) At the end of para 6 of the plaint after the full stop it may be added “that defendant in furtherance of his intentions and suggestion also handed over the original sale deed of the Schedule „A‟ land on which 2 the Mill house has been constructed by the plaintiff; (ii) At the end of para 13 of the plaint after full stop it may be added “that while the Mill was running the plaintiff also constructed a Kunni ghar to stract Saw dust and the said Kunni Ghar has been constructed by bamboo Tatti being corrugated iron sheets roof.” The same has been rejected in view of the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The same has been inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1999, with effect from 1.7.2002, and is reproduced hereinbelow: “17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. 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 thus evident that the amendment has become effective with effect from 1.7.2002, whereas the suit has been filed in 2003. The intention has been in force at the time of institution of the suit. The question for 3 consideration is whether or not it is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned trial court has found that the plaintiff has not been able to establish that could not raise the issue relating to proposed amendment earlier in spite of due diligence. This is an issue of fact, and left to the discretion and satisfaction of the learned trial court. No material has been brought to our notice that the plaintiff has shown due diligence for bringing about the proposed amendment. Learned counsel for the opposite party has rightly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vidyabai and Ors. V. Padmalatha and Anr., A.I.R. 2009 SC 1433. The civil revision application is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)