THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.No. 2343 of 2010 ORDER: 1. Challenging the order dated 22.04.2010 in I.A.No. 85 of 2010 in O.P.No. 345 of 2008 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner. 2. The above interlocutory application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking to amend the counter in O.P.No.345 of 2008 and the said application was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that though the petitioner was aware of the facts of the proposed amendment even at the time of filing the counter, she kept quiet and filed the present petition which is belated. 3. Heard. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner filed counter in the month of January, 2009 and while going through the record of previous cases, she recollected some incidents which are not mentioned in the counter, therefore, she sought for amendment of the counter. It is further contended that the amendment sought to be made in the counter would resolve the disputes between the petitioner-wife and the respondent- husband once for all. 5. Proviso to Rule 17, as inserted by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, restricts and curtails power of the Court to allow amendment in pleadings by enacting that no application for amendment should 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 amendment sought for before the commencement of the trial. The original petition was coming on for arguments on behalf of respondents in the trial Court. It is not a case where the facts on which the proposed amendment sought for are not within the knowledge of petitioner herein. Filing of the amendment petition after trial is commenced is not automatic or routine. Nowhere it is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition as to how such a plea which is now sought to be amended has not been taken earlier. In the absence of such plea, the question of allowing the petition does not arise. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. K.C.BHANU,J Dt. 22.03.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.No.2343 of 2010 Dt. 22.03.2011