IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2132 of 2008 ---- Sumesh Kumar @ Sumesh Prasad, son of Late Chhathi Lal Prasad, resident of Mohalla East of Mauna Chowk, Post Office Chapra, Police Station Chapra Town, District Saran at Chapra. -- Defendant-Petitioner. Versus 1. Smt. Sushila Devi wife of Late Gautam Prasad, 2. Arun Kumar, 3. Anil Kumar, 4. Ajay Kumar, All sons of Late Gautam Prasad, All are residents of Mohalla Daldali Bazar, Post Office Chapra, Police Station Chapra Town, District Saran at Chapra. -- Plaintiffs-Opposite parties. ----- For the petitioner : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate. Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate. For the opposite parties : M/s Nagendra Rai & Navin Nikuj, Advocates. ----- 06. 30.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This civil revision has been filed by the sole defendant- petitioner challenging order dated 23.09.2008 by which the learned Munsif-I, Saran at Chapra rejected his application for amendment of his written statement under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed in Eviction Suit No.12 of 2005. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite parties for eviction of the sole defendant-petitioner on the only ground of bonafide personal requirement of the plaintiffs with respect to the suit premises which is a shop room. The aforesaid suit was contested by the defendant who filed his written statement, whereafter issues were framed and evidence, both oral and - 2 - documentary, were adduced by the parties and the suit was taken up for arguments. 4. It also transpires that after three days of the defendant’s arguments, an application was filed on behalf of the defendant on 28.08.2008 for amendment of the written statement. To the said amendment petition, the plaintiffs filed their rejoinder on 28.08.2008 and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the provisions of law and also the case laws, the learned court below vide its impugned order dated 23.09.2008 rejected the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant and directed the parties to start their argument on 22.10.2008. 5. From the arguments made by learned counsel for the parties as well as from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that the suit was of the year 2005, i.e. much after the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, including Order VI Rule 17 of the Code which came into force on 01.07.2002. It further transpires that the said amendment was never sought earlier by the defendant before the commencement of the hearing of the suit. 6. The learned Court below has considered the limits with respect to the term “commencement of trial” decided by a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Baldev Singh & Ors. etc. V. Manohar Singh & Anr etc., reported in A.I.R.2006 Supreme Court 2832 as well as a decision of this court in case of Gopal Kumar Modi and Anr Vs. Lalan Pd. Keshri @ Shushil, reported in 2007(3) PLJR - 3 - 164, in which it was specifically held that commencement of the trial must be understood in the limited sense as meaning the final hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of arguments. In the instant case, the final hearing had admittedly started and witnesses have been examined and documents have been filed already and even addressing of arguments by the defendants had been done. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, amended provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code would be applicable which provides that 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 parties could not raise the matter before the commencement of the trial. In the instant case, the learned court below was satisfied that the matter could have been raised by the defendants earlier before the commencement of the trial, but he failed to do that. 8. Furthermore, the matter is with regard to eviction of the tenant on the only ground of personal necessity and hence the defendant, who is claimed to be a tenant, cannot be allowed to delay the disposal of the suit by raising such frivolous issues. 9. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)