HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4343 of 2008 ORDER: This revision petition is filed against the order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, in I.A.No.223 of 2008 in O.S.No.349 of 2005, dated 21.07.2008. Despite service of notice, neither the respondents are present nor are they represented by counsel. I.A.No. 223 of 2008 was filed, under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC, by the respondents/defendants seeking amendment to the written statement by adding para 14-A thereto. The Court below observed that, after filing the affidavit in chief- examination by the petitioners/plaintiffs, the respondents/defendants had come up with the present I.A. to amend the written statement by adding para 14-A stating that the suit was premature; they could not take the plea of mistake in the written statement; and the amendment would not change the nature of the suit. The Court below, elaborating the pleadings, which were already made in the written statement, observed that it would not change the nature of the case; it cannot be said that it would cause prejudice to the petitioners/plaintiffs; and, in such circumstances, it was just and proper to permit the respondents/defendants to make amendment to the written statement. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners/plaintiffs invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, Learned Counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs, would draw attention of this Court to Order VI Rule 17 CPC which relates to amendment of pleadings. Under the proviso thereto, no application for amendment shall be allowed 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. Except to state that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners/plaintiffs the Court below has not recorded the finding whether or not the respondents/defendants could raise the matter before the commencement of trial in spite of due diligence on their part. The order of the Court below suffers from a patent illegality as the conditions, stipulated in proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, have not been borne in mind while permitting to amend the written statement. I consider it appropriate to set aside the order under revision and remand the I.A.No.223 of 2008 to the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, who, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, shall adjudicate the I.A. afresh in terms of Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt:17-06-2010 usd