THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.3137 of 2011 ORDER The respondent herein filed O.S.No.3 of 2007 in the Court of XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for perpetual injunction against the petitioner herein. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.66 of 2011 seeking to amend the written statement by adding paragraphs 18 and 19. By order dated 24.06.2011, the Court below dismissed the said I.A. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present revision. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court below ought to have allowed the I.A. as the amendment would not cause any alteration of nature of the suit nor cause any prejudice to the respondent. He relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in PANKAJA v. YELLAPPA[1] wherein it was held as under: So far as the Court’s jurisdiction to allow an amendment of pleadings is concerned there can be no two opinion that the same is wide enough to permit amendments even in case where there [has been substantial delay in filing such amendment applications. This Court in numerous cases has held the dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation, therefore, if the facts of the case so permits, it is always open to the Court to allow applications in spite of the delay and laches in moving such amendment application. 4. Order VI Rule 17 CPC reads as under; Amendment of pleadings-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings 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: 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. 5. In the instant case, admittedly, the trial of the suit commenced and the case was posted for cross-examination of D.W.1. As per the proviso to the above said Rule, the petitioner was under obligation to state the reasons to satisfy the Court as to what prevented him from seeking amendment before the commencement of the trial. As the petitioner wants to include the legal aspects by way of amendment without explaining proper reasons therefor, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:03.12.2011 sj [1] AIR 2004 SC 4102(1)