CRP 463/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H BARUAH Heard Mr. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. In this revision order dated 8-10-2010 passed by learned Munsiff, Udalguri in Mi sc(J) Case No. 14 of 2010 has been impugned. A petition under Order VI Rule 17 being No. 206 of 2010 was filed by the plainti ff for amendment of the boundaries of the suit land, which was resisted by the d efendants, the trial court by the impugned order herein rejected it on the groun d that such application would not be maintainable in view of the stage of the pr oceeding that reached during that relevant time and further that once a plainti ff amended the plaint by filing an application. On this score alone the applicat ion under Order VI Rule 17 was rejected by the trial court. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure speaks that court may at any sta ge of the proceeding allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controv ersy between the parties. Rule 17 of the Order VI has not provided any time fra me for making an application for amedment. It has given liberty to the either pa rty to ask the court to make an amendment of the pleadings at any stage of the p roceeding, subject to that if such amendment is allowed, the nature of the suit is completely changed then and then the court can reject the application for ame ndment. Further, the proviso to the Rule 17 also placed a limitation that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the co nclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the mat ter before the commencement of trial. The impugned order never indicates anything about due diligence of the petitione rs-plaintiff. It is no doubt noticed from the order that the amendment was sough t by the plaintiff after the trial commenced and the contents of the application , which was filed under Order VI Rule 17 does not also speak that such defect co uld not be located before commencement of the trial. Moreover, earlier to the ap plication for amendment another amendment application was filed but such defect was never pleaded. These being the facts in the face of the records, this court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision is accordingly dismissed. No cost.