IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11765 of 2010 ANARSHI MANDAL, SON OF LATE MISHRI MANDAL, RESIDENT OF NARGA BAZAR ROAD, NASRATH KHANI, P.S. NATH NAGAR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. … PETITIONER. Versus 1. RANA PRATAP SINGH , SON OF LATE RAJU SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- MASAKCHAK, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. 2. BALDEO SINGH, SON OF LATE SITABI SINGH, RESIDENT OF CHHAJJUPUR, NASRATH KHANI, P.S. NATHNAGAR, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. 3. MOSMAT PARWATI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE SUBUKLAL SINGH. 4. NAWAL KISHORE SINGH, SON OF LATE SUBUKLAL SINGH 5. BILLA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF LATE SUBUKLAL SINGH 6. SANJU DEVI, D/O LATE SUBUKLAL SINGH 7. KALPANA DEVI, D/O LATE SUBUKLAL SINGH. 8. RUBI DEVI, D/O LATE SUBUKLAL SINGH No.3 to 8 RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- JOGSAR, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR. ..RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 03.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is the plaintiff in Title Suit No.186 of 1991 aggrieved by the order dated 14.5.2010 passed by Sub-Judge IV, Bhagalpur rejecting his application for amendment of plaint under Order-6, Rule-17 of the C.P.C. The impugned order notices that the case was running for final argument since 1.6.2006. The defense argument concluded on 13.4.2007. The plaintiff commenced argument on 19.4.2010, continued on 24.4.2010, 26.4.2010, 27.4.2010 and concluded it on 28.4.2010. The parties were then directed to file written argument on 1.5.2010. In stead of filing written arguments the amendment petition has been filed. The Suit was filed 19 years ago arguments had concluded when only judgment remained to be pronounced. The amendment application is on record. It seeks to urge that the sale deed was without consideration. No statement has been made as to why if the sale deed had been challenged this pleading was not made specifically earlier and when it came to the knowledge of the petitioner. Order-18, Rule-2, Sub-rule 3(a) and 3(b) provides for filing of written arguments at the time of conclusion of the oral argument after furnishing copies to the other sides. The Suit is, therefore, at the stage of conclusion and only judgment remains to be pronounced. Order-6, Rule-17 proviso specifically provides that amendment shall not 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. In the present case the trial is virtually at an end and only judgment remained to be pronounced upon filing of written arguments. The amendment application is completely silent as to why it was earlier not urged that no consideration had passed and on which date the fact came to be known to the plaintiff. The Court finds no error in the impugned order. The writ application is, accordingly, rejected. Ibrar/- ( Navin Sinha, J.)