THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2745 of 2007 Oral order: The revision petition, instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution, is by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 426 of 2003. The suit was filed for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. It would appear that in an application seeking interim injunction, an order of status quo was passed by the trial court (the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Cheerala). The plaintiff, three years after the suit, filed I.A.No 1817 of 2006 in O.S.No. 426 of 2003 pleading that during the pendency of the order of status quo, the respondent/defendant illegally encroached into the schedule property and damaged the Casurina plantation therein worth Rs.1.00 lakh; that an Advocate- Commissioner had noted the existence of Casurina plantation; that the value of the Casurina plantation in the suit schedule property was estimated by two individuals, well-versed in purchasing Casurina; that the plaintiff was advised to claim damages in addition to the relief of permanent injunction; and therefore the application is being filed seeking amendment of the plaint and for seeking the additional relief of damages under Order VI Rule 17 read with 115 CPC. It must be noticed that there is no plea whatsoever in the affidavit accompanying I.A.No. 1817 of 2006 as to when the order of status quo was granted, when the respondent/defendant allegedly trespassed into the suit schedule property in violation of the order of status quo and damaged the Casurina plantation and within what time lag from the occurrence of such trespass and damage, the present application seeking amendment of the plaint and the additional relief of damages is being filed. It is not in dispute in this revision that the trial of O.S.No. 426 of 2003 had commenced by the date the revision petitioner filed I.A.No. 1817 of 2006. The learned counsel for the respondent/defendant would contend that the evidence of the plaintiff and the defendant had also concluded by that date. Order VI Rule 17 of CPC enables the Court that at any stage of the proceedings to 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. The proviso to Rule 17 enjoins that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. For exercise of discretion by the Court under Order VI Rule 17 therefore, the revision petitioner must plead specifically that not only did the defendant trespass into the suit schedule property and had damaged the Casurina plantation, before the commencement of the trial in O.S.No. 426 of 2003 but also that the application was filed with due expedition after such alleged trespass and damage. The affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 1817 of 2006 is singularly bereft of any such specific pleas and sets out casual and breezy averments that the respondent/defendant ha trespassed (at some undisclosed time and date) into the suit schedule property and occasioned damage to the Casurina plantation. The court below, by the order impugned, rejected I.A.No. 1817 of 2006 on two grounds; a) that as per the amended Code of Civil Procedure, under Order VI Rule 17 no amendment could be permitted after the commencement of the trial unless the person who seeks amendment discloses that inspite of due diligence such amendment could not have been sought earlier, before the commencement of the trial; and b) that the amendment sought would change the nature of the suit and cause of action. The Court below also held that the damage to the Casurina plantation of the plaintiff and the recovery of such damages is a separate transaction and a separate cause of action warranting the institution of an independent suit for damages. The Court below categorically recorded however, that the petitioner/plaintiff failed to show that inspite of due diligence the amendment could not have been sought earlier. Order VI Rule 17, as already noted, disentitles the Court to allow an application for amendment after the commencement of the trial unless the Court is satisfied to record a conclusion that inspite of due diligence the party seeking the amendment could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. From the pleadings/affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 1817 of 2006 it is not clear when the order of status quo was granted in the suit, when the defendant allegedly trespassed into the suit schedule property and damaged the Casurina crop, in transgression of the order of status quo, when the trial of the suit had commenced and why the application for amendment could not have been filed before the commencement of the trial in the suit. As the pleadings filed in support of I.A.No. 1817 of 2006 are totally and wholly bereft of the relevant jurisdictional pleadings of fact, for exercise of the discretion of the court under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the said application could not have been allowed and was rightly rejected. This Court discerns no infirmity in the order of the Court below, either in the application of law or in the exercise of discretion, warranting interference in this revision. The revision is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 24th June, 2010. GRR