HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5302 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri G.Dhananjai, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, Learned Counsel for respondents 2 to 6. The present revision is filed against the order of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Warangal in I.A.No.842 of 2006 in O.S.No.121 of 1998 permitting amendment of the written statement. The application in I.A.No.842 of 2006 was filed by the petitioners, under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment of the written statement. They had earlier filed I.A.No.523 of 2003 seeking to amend the written statement, and the said application was rejected. They carried the matter in revision before this Court in C.R.P. No.2678 of 2005. This Court, by its order dated 6.2.2006, expressed its disinclination to interfere with the order. Since the suit was for partition, and the date of death appeared to be a crucial aspect, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application narrating all the details in the affidavit which may be filed in support of the proposed application, if the petitioners therein were so advised. Pursuant to the order of this Court in C.R.P. No.2678 of 2005 dated 6.2.2006, the present application in I.A. No.842 of 2006 was filed. It is evident from the earlier application filed in I.A. No.523 of 2003, seeking amendment of the written statement, that even by that date trial had already commenced. The proviso to O.6 Rule 17 C.P.C. prohibits an application for amendment being allowed after 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 commencement of the trial. Sri G. Dhananjai, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that a written statement was filed to the original plaint and subsequently, on the plaint being amended, an additional written statement was filed and it is only by way of this and the earlier application that the said written statement is sought to be amended. Learned counsel would submit that it was not open to the respondent-defendant to file one written statement after another and that, in any event, the court below did not examine whether the petitioner had exercised due diligence despite which the written statement could not be filed before commencement of trial. The Court below has allowed the application only on the ground that such an amendment ought to be permitted to decide the controversy between the parties, and that no prejudice or hardship would be caused to the petitioner herein if the proposed amendment was allowed as no new case was introduced. While Sri G. Dhananjai, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, would submit that this finding of the Court below is contrary to the record, it is wholly unnecessary for this Court to examine this contention as it is evident from the order under revision that the Court below has not examined the question whether or not the written statement should be permitted to be amended, in the light of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. I consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to set aside the order under revision and remand back the matter to the Court below for its consideration afresh as to whether the application filed to amend the written statement could be allowed in the light of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17. It is made clear that the Court below shall pass orders afresh after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard. The C.R.P. is, accordingly, allowed. __________ 8-7-2010 asp