THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P.No.1780 of 2009 DATE: 21-8-2009 Between: Smt.Ch.Yadamma and another .. Petitioners And 1. LambadiRamja and 31 others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P.No.1780 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: The present revision is preferred against the order of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – cum – V Addl. District Judge, Medak District in I.A.No.611 of 2008 in O.S.No.28 of 2006 dated 20.01.2009. I.A.No.611 of 2008 is an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17, read with Section 151 C.P.C, for amendment of the plaint. The revision petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. They sought amendment of the plaint by inclusion of certain additional paragraphs after paragraph 5. The amendments as sought mainly relate to (1) that Ex.P.5 was forged (2) that the M.R.O. had no power, under section 5-A of the A.P. Rights of Land in Pattadar Pass Book Act, 1971, to validate the agreement of sale; (3) service of notice to the parties was necessary under section 5-A of the said Act; (4) that the husband of the 1st petitioner herein was being impersonated and (5) that Section 13-B certificate was invalid. The Court below held that that whatever was mentioned by the petitioners-plaintiffs, in the proposed amendments, could be put as questions to the respondent in cross-examination as they had taken such pleas in the rejoinder which formed part and parcel of the pleadings. The petition seeking amendment was, accordingly, dismissed. It is this order which is the subject matter of challenge in the present revision proceedings. Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. enables the Court, at any stage of the proceedings, to allow either party to alter or amend their pleadings in such a manner, and on such terms, as may be just. The rule permits all such amendments to be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy. The proviso thereunder prohibits any application for amendment from being 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 commencement of the trial. It is the admitted case of both parties that, even before the application seeking amendment was filed, an affidavit in lieu of chief examination of the 1st plaintiff had already been filed. The question which arises for consideration is whether mere filing of the affidavit in lieu of chief examination would amount to commencement of trial. I n Ajendraprasadji N. Pande v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N[1], the Supreme Court held that either treating the date of settlement of issues as the date of commencement of trial or filing of affidavit, which is treated as examination in chief, as the date of commencement of trial, the matter would fall under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. and that the person, seeking amendment, was, therefore, required to prove that, inspite of due diligence, he could not have raised the mater before commencement of trial. In Vidyabai v. Padmalatha[2], the Supreme Court held that the date on which the issues are framed is the date of first hearing and that filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the witness would amount to commencement of proceedings. As noted hereinabove, in the present case, the application seeking amendment was filed after affidavit in lieu of chief examination of the 1st plaintiff had already been filed and, since the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, reckons filing of the affidavit in lieu of chief examination as the date of commencement of trial, no such application, seeking amendment, could have been entertained by the Court below unless the applicant established that, despite due diligence, he could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., before the Court below, would clearly show that the petitioner-plaintiffs had not even pleaded that, despite due diligence, the matter could not have been raised before commencement of trial. The affidavit, filed in support of the I.A., merely deals with the amendment sought to be made to the plaint. It is completely silent with regards the due diligence requirement. In Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand[3] the Supreme Court observed that, while the power of amendment should be liberally exercised, care should be taken to see that injustice and prejudice of an irremediable character was not inflicted upon the opposite party under the pretence of an amendment. Upon referring to Black’s Law Dictionary and Words and Phrases, the Supreme Court held that due diligence was reasonable diligence i.e, such diligence as a prudent man would exercise in the conduct of his own affairs. The Supreme Court further observed that unless prompt steps were taken to file petition seeking amendment, it would not amount to diligence. As noted hereinabove, the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. is completely silent with regards the due diligence requirement. In view of the bar, under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17, the application filed by the petitioner herein, seeking amendment of the plaint, could not have been entertained by the Court below. While it is no doubt true that this aspect of the matter has not been examined by the Court below, it is well settled that this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would not interfere with orders of the Court below save manifest injustice being caused. The petitioners have failed to make out a case for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Revision petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. _________ 21-8-2009 asp [1] AIR 2007 SC 806 [2] AIR 2009 S 1433 [3] AIR 2008 SC 2234