IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5973 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Order: 15.10.2009 Tarsem Singh .....Petitioner Versus Baljit Kaur and others .....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA. Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** SABINA, J.(Oral) The plaintiff-petitioner had filed the suit for declaration that he had half share in the suit property as the same was a joint Hindu ancestral coparcenary property. The suit was filed in the year 2001. Notice of the suit was issued to the defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff-petitioner moved an application for permission to amend the plaint. Vide the impugned order, the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant revision peition is devoid of any merit. The plaintiff-petitioner had filed the suit in the year 2001. The father of the plaintiff-petitioner died in the year 2002. The amended written statement was filed by the defendants on 19.09.2003 and averment regarding the Will dated 24.09.2001 was specifically mentioned in the written statement. However, the plaintiff did not choose to amend the plaint immediately but the application was filed seeking amendment of the plaint in the year 2006. Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: 17.Amendment of pleadings:-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or Civil Revision No. 5973 of 2009(O&M) ..2.. 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. Provided that no application for amendment shall 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." The plaintiff-petitioner had failed to establish that despite due diligence, the amendment sought after the commencement of the trial could not be sought earlier. In these circumstances, the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner in view of the Order 6, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 15.10.2009 (SABINA) Seema-II Judge