JUDGMENT : V.K. Gupta, J. Vide the impugned order the learned trial Court has rejected the petitioners' application for amendment of written statement filed under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code 2. Mr. Verma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court has wrongly rejected the amendment application. Mr. Gupta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the rejection is wholly unassailable, especially in view of the fact that the petitioners-defendants were not entitled to ask for amendment of the written statement in as much as the facts which the petitioners-defendants wanted to introduce by way of amendment were known to them at the stage the original written statement was filed and keeping in view the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code, the amendment application deserves to be dismissed. 3. Order 6 Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code reads thus : "17. Amendment of pleading-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings 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 questions in controversy between the parties: Provided 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 party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." 4. Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code was introduced for the first time by way of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002. Prior to the said amendment, there was no proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code By introduction of the proviso the power of the Court to permit amendments in the pleadings after the trial has commenced has now been circumscribed and limited only to such situations where the Court comes to a conclusion that inspite of due diligence the party asking for the amendment could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. I have very carefully perused the amendment application field by the petitioners-defendants in the trial Court and find that no material in the amendment application is reflected which can even remotely point out that the petitioners-defendants despite due diligence were prevented from raising the facts which they now want to introduce in the written statement, in the original written statement which they had filed. The expression, "this has become necessary for the reason that some facts which are relevant for the just and proper determination of the case could not be set up earlier despite, due diligence" used in the second para of the amendment application was a mere bald assertion by the petitioners defendants because this bald assertion is not supported by any material fact or any material particular which may lead to an inference that, "despite due diligence" the petitioners could not bring the aforesaid facts in the original written statement. All the facts sought to be introduced were known to the petitioners at the stage of filing of original written statement yet that did not raise them at that stage. It is not the case of the petitioners that any new fact came to be noticed-by them after filing of the original written statement. 5. The trial has concluded in the sense that the evidence of the parties stands completed. 6. Because of the aforesaid circumstances, especially in view of the proviso to Rule 17 Order 6, CP.C. I am of the opinion that the trial Court was justified in refusing the amendment application. In this view of mine, I am fortified by a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Jeet Ram Kishore and others v. Sunder Singh reported in Latest HLJ 2004 (HP) 582. 7. The petition is dismissed. No Orders as to costs.