CRP 18/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR HN SARMA Heard Mr. A. Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioners. The subject matter of challenge in this revision petition is an orde r dated 6.12.2010 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 17/2010 arising out of Title Suit No.7/2008 by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Jorhat. The petitioner as plaintiff instituted the aforesaid Title Suit No. 7/ 2008 praying for declaration of right, title and interest and khas possession ov er the suit land and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from en tering the suit land and for other reliefs. The summon of the suit having been served, the defendants appeared and fi led their written statement contesting the suit. On the basis of the pleadings, the issues have been framed and the suit wa s set down for hearing and in fact the part of the in-chief-evidence on behalf o f the plaintiff had already been submitted. At that stage the plaintiff has fi led this application for amendment of the plaint by adding paragraphs 12 and 13 to which the defendants objected. The learned trial court vide impugned order da ted 6.12.2010 rejected the prayer for amendment on the count that the plaintiff did not highlight as to the reasons for not coming with the amendment petition a t a stage before the trial commenced and there is also no averment that in spite of due diligence the plaintiff could not file such amendment petition. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that th e application for amendment by incorporating two paragraphs was required to be m ade only to bring to the judicial notice of the court relating to certain facts although those facts are matters of records and such amendment would not change the nature and character of the suit. After amendment of the CPC in 2002 the Legislature has put a proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI to the effect that no application for amendment shall be all owed after the trial has commenced, inasmuch as, the Court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter befo re the commencement of trial. The learned trial court found that the petitioners have satisfied the court to the effect that in spite of due diligence the matte r could be raised before commencement of trial and in the meantime the trial has started. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order, I do not find that the learned trial court has committed any ju risdictional error in rejecting the prayer for amendment. However, it would be open for the petitioners to narrate the facts which are sou ght to be brought on record by way of evidence of the remaining witnesses/witnes s of the plaintiff, if so desires and upon bringing on record those facts by way of evidence, certainly the learned trial court shall consider the same at the t ime of hearing of the case. Subject to the above observations, this petition stands finally closed.