THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1499 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs aggrieved by the order, dated 27.10.2009 passed by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, in I.A.No.887 of 2009 in O.S.No.1110 of 2005. The aforesaid suit was initially filed for permanent injunction. But, the petitioners on the ground that after filing the above said suit, on 15.04.2006, the respondents have occupied the suit schedule property, filed I.A.No.887 of 2009 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint by adding the relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. The said I.A. was opposed by the respondents by filing counter-affidavit stating that in the written statement itself, they have taken the plea that they purchased the suit schedule property on 21.05.1992 and since then, they are in possession and enjoyment of it and that in June, 2005, they obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation and thereby, constructed the first floor and laid slab. The trial Court by the impugned order while considering the plea of the petitioners and the averments in the counter-affidavit, rejected the I.A. inter alia on the ground that there is no explanation as to delay in filing such I.A. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the trial Court ought to have allowed I.A.No.887 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for amendment of the plaint and that limitation alone is not the criterion to reject I.A.No.887 of 2009 filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in T.VEERA VENKATA RAO v. TIKKANA VENKATA RAMANA AND OTHERS[1]. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is to be noted that in view of Order VI Rule 17, which was substituted by way of amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure in 2002, no application for amendment is permissible after the trial has been commenced, unless the Court records its conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not raise the matter before commencement of the trial. It is to be further noted that the written statement filed by the respondents in December, 2005 itself categorically speaks that the respondents/defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of its purchase on 21.05.1992 and they obtained permission from the municipal authorities in June, 2005 and constructed the first floor and laid slab. It is also to be noted that the affidavit in lieu of chief-examination of P.W.1 was filed and he was cross-examined. At that point of time, the petitioners filed I.A.No.887 of 2009 seeking amendment of the plaint. Having regard to the aforesaid reasons recorded by the trial Court and applying the proviso of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, it can be said that it is a case where the petitioners were not diligent for raising such plea before the trial has been commenced. Though limitation cannot be the ground as pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioners, irrespective of the same, whether the party has shown due diligence for pleading amendment before commencement of the trial is a matter to be examined with regard to the facts of each case. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the Civil Revision Petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd JUNE, 2010. kvni [1] 2010(2) ALT 631