THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2862 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner/defendant filed this revision aggrieved by the order dated 29.04.2010 passed in I.A.No.259 of 2010 in O.S.No.63 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, whereby the I.A. filed under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking permission to amend the written statement, was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that when the first respondent herein who instituted the suit for recovery of money died, respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein filed I.A.No.233 of 2007 in O.S.No.63 of 2005 under Order XXII Rule 3 C.P.C. seeking to implead themselves as plaintiff Nos.2 to 6, being the legal heirs of the deceased first plaintiff. In the said I.A., the petitioner filed a counter making a specific plea that the proposed plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 are not the legal heirs of the deceased first plaintiff. Rejecting the contention of the petitioner, the trial Court ordered the said I.A. holding that the respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein are the legal heirs of the deceased first plaintiff and accordingly the plaint was amended adding them as plaintiff Nos.2 to 6. Thereafter, an additional written statement was filed by the petitioner, but no such plea has been raised in the said written statement that plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 cannot maintain the suit as they are not the legal representatives of the deceased first plaintiff. In the absence of such plea, no issue as such was framed. However, the petitioner come up with I.A.No.259 of 2010 in O.S.No.63 of 2005 seeking to amend the written statement once again contending that the second plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased first plaintiff and therefore plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 are not the legal heirs of the deceased first plaintiff. The said application was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, this revision. It is represented that the trial in the suit has commenced and the second plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 by filing an affidavit-in-chief and she was cross-examined. Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. prohibits amendment of the pleadings 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 matter before the commencement of trial. Though the petitioner contended that respondent Nos.2 to 6 are not the legal heirs of the deceased first plaintiff, he failed to substantiate the said contention and therefore, the said contention was rejected by the Court below while allowing I.A.No.233 of 2007 impleading respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein as plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 and subsequently, the petitioner filed additional written statement mentioning plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 as the legal heirs of the deceased first plaintiff. However, thereafter, he seeks to amend the written statement once again by raising the rejected contentions. The circumstances are not in favour of the petitioner to prove his due diligence. In view of the above, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 16th July, 2010 GHN