C. R. No. 5981 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 5981 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : September 16, 2010 Amar Chand .... Petitioner Vs. Sukhbir and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. S. S. Kaliramna, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 23616-C-II of 2010 : Allowed as prayed for. Main Case : Plaintiff Amar Chand has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by way of instant revision petition to challenge order dated 29.07.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, thereby dismissing application Annexure P-2 moved by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of plaint. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the C. R. No. 5981 of 2010 (O&M) 2 case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit and therefore, proposed amendment should be allowed. The contention cannot be accepted. Issues in the suit were framed on 24.08.2006 and the case was thereafter fixed for evidence of the plaintiff on 10.02.2007 and amendment application was moved on 05.09.2007. Thus, the amendment application was moved by the plaintiff-petitioner after commencement of trial. However, in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC), which has been held to be mandatory, amendment of pleading cannot be allowed after commencement of trial, unless the Court comes to conclusion that the party seeking amendment could not have raised said plea in spite of due diligence. In the instant case, the plaintiff has not even pleaded in the amendment application Annexure P-2 that he could not raise this plea earlier in spite of due diligence. Consequently, in view of mandatory provision of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the amendment application has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. There is no illegality in the impugned order of the trial court warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is thus found to be bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. September 16, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE