IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.460 of 2006 SUNITA DEVI Versus ROUDI YADAV ----------- 6 4.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seems to be aggrieved by an order dated 20.7.2005 rejecting prayer of the defendant petitioner for amendment in his written statement. Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the prayer made in the amendment application submits that the amendment would not have introduced any new case much less could have prejudiced the plaintiff opposite party and thus the Court below was wholly unjustified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the application filed by the petitioner itself lacked any material to justify such amendment at a belated stage in view of the fact that after 1.7.2002 in view of the amendment in order VI rule 17 in the Code of Civil Procedure, it has to be necessarily satisfied by a party seeking amendment in the pleading that either the trial had not commenced or the amendment sought could not have been raised earlier before the commencement of the trial even 2 after the exercise of due diligence. In the application of seeking amendment in the written statement filed by the petitioner pertaining to a suit which was filed after the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure came into force i.e. on 1.7.2002, not a word was said either about commencement of trial or exercise of due diligence in the application filed by him. There is no dispute that the suit was filed on 16.8.2002 and the written statement by the petitioner was filed on 29.5.2003 and such amendment was sought to be made by an application filed on 4.9.2004 when the trial had already commenced. In fact, the Court below has rightly rejected such amendment as there was conscious attempt on the part of the defendant petitioner to change her case and take away certain admission as would be evident from reading of paragraph no.23 in the original written statement vis-à-vis the proposed amendment. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order and accordingly this civil application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)