THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5311 OF 2010 DATED 21ST JULY, 2011 BETWEEN P.Ramaiah …Petitioner And P.Laxman Rao and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5311 OF 2010 ORDER: The defendant in O.S.No.170 of 2004 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge’s Court at Zaheerabad calls in question the order dated 04.10.2010 passed by the said Court dismissing his application in I.A.No.220 of 2010 seeking amendment of his written statement dated 07.06.2005. The suit, O.S.No.170 of 2004, was filed by respondent 1 herein for declaration of his title and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. Respondent 2, the purchaser of the said property pendente lite, got himself impleaded in the suit proceedings. The petitioner herein, being the defendant in the said suit, filed his written statement as long back as on 07.06.2005. The trial commenced in the year 2009 and the examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 was also completed. At the stage of cross-examination of P.W.3, the subject petition was filed by the defendant under Order VI, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking to amend the written statement by substituting the words ‘oral will’ and ‘bequeathed’ with the words ‘oral family settlement’ and ‘divided’ respectively and to introduce a sentence with regard to the execution of a document dated 27.03.1977. Upon contest, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. by its order dated 04.10.2010. Perusal of the order under revision reflects that the trial Court, having given its earnest consideration to the matter in the light of case law, found that the petitioner failed to account for the delay in filing the application and further opined that there was absence of due diligence on his part. Pertinent to note, after the amendment of Order VI, Rule 17 CPC in the year 2002, the discretion of the Court to allow amendment of the pleadings is fettered after the trial commences. In such a case, the Court necessarily has to come to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party seeking such amendment could not raise the matter before the commencement of the trial. The trial Court, by its cogent and well reasoned order, considered the amended provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 CPC in the context of decided case law and found on facts that the defendant in the suit had failed to establish due diligence on his part in not seeking the amendment prior to the commencement of the trial. This Court therefore finds no error in the order passed by the trial Court warranting interference in revision. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. CRPMP No.7056 of 2010 shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 21ST JULY, 2011. VGSR/PGS