CMPMO 10 of 2008 13.3.2008 Present: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. This petition is directed against the order of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Indora, dated 21.11.2007 whereby he has rejected the application filed by the petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is the co- sharer/co-owner of the suit property and that mutation No. 53, dated 20.8.2005 sanctioned in favour of the defendant is illegal, null and void. In this plaint no mention was made of any previous suit. By this application the plaintiff wants to amend the plaint. Though the amendment has not been very clearly set out in the application and the application is defective, but it is apparent from the reading of the application that the petitioner, by way of amendment, seeks to assail the decree passed in civil suit No. 92 of 1995 which, according to the defendant, is binding on the parties. Admittedly, this decree was passed on 8th May, 1998, whereas the present suit was filed on 26th November, 2005. There is no explanation worth the name as to why challenge to this decree was not made in the original suit. The provisions of Order 6 Rule 17, as now amended, clearly provide that the court shall not allow any amendment after the trial has commenced unless the court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence a party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. The plaintiff was a party to the previous suit. There is not a whisper in the application as to why this ground could not be taken in the original plaint. No ground has been made out for allowing the amendment at this belated stage. The order of Civil Judge suffers from no infirmity and the petition is rejected in limine. March 13, 2008(K) ( Deepak Gupta ), J.