JUDGMENT 1. - This Civil Revision Petition under section 115 CPC is directed against the order d:. 1.2.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD) Fatehpur Shekhawati, Distt. Sikar in Civil Original Suit No. 13/73 whereby application of petitioner-plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition and necessary for its disposal are that petitioner-Peer Gulam Naseer instituted a suit in the year 1973 for possession against defendants-non-petitioners stating therein that Dargah Haza Khawaja Nasmuddin Sahib situated at Fatehpur Shekhawati has been in his possession since time of his ancestors for over last 100 years in the capacity of Sajjada Naaseen and Mutuwalli. Non-petitioners are his brothers. So they are permitted to reside in some part of the land of Dargah for two months for which an agreement was also executed on 29.9.1969. But, they refused to vacate the premises. After the death of Peer Narul Hassan Sahib, petitioner was substituted as his legal heirs in the suit. Non-petitioners defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and denying the averments made in the plaint. After framing of issues and after conclusion of the evidence of plaintiff on 14.12.1992, an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC was made for amendment of the suit with the averments that non-petitioner Gularn Jilani has illegally trespassed on some additional part of the land of Dargah in an illegal manner for which a new para may be permitted to be added in the plaint. This application was opposed by and on behalf of non-petitioners defendants. Learned Court below after hearing the parties, dismissed the said application vide impugned order. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner could not show as to how the order impugned if passed in favour of petitioner would have finally disposed of the suit or the proceedings. In view of the amended proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 115 CPC as interpreted by Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Phool Singh v. Malva @ Bhavalia & Ors., AIR 2002 MP 246 . Karnataka High Court in the case of K.R. Subbaraju v. Vasavi trading Co. & Ors. In view of the amended proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 115 CPC as interpreted by Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Phool Singh v. Malva @ Bhavalia & Ors., AIR 2002 MP 246 . Karnataka High Court in the case of K.R. Subbaraju v. Vasavi trading Co. & Ors. AIR 2002 Karnataka 407 and this Court in the case of Hari Prasad v. Ram Dayal & Ors., S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1474/2002 decided on 13.2.2003 , this Court is precluded from varying or reversing the order impugned in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 4. This apart under the newly inserted proviso to Rule 17ORDER6, CPC w.e.f. 1.7.2002 after the commencement of the trial application for amendment of the pleadings cannot be allowed unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not raise the matter earlier. Learned Court below has observed that the plaintiff has tried to play second inning through this amendment application which would have the effect of starting the trial de novo. 5. In this view of the matter, therefore, the revision petition deserves to be and is dismissed summarily. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to raise grievances sought to be raised in this petition in the appeal, if any.Revision Dismissed. *******