Judgment Heard Sri S.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V.K. Kohli, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Sri I.P. Kohli, learned counsel, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no.1. 2. Learned counsel for both the parties are agreed to decide the writ petition at Its admission stage Itself. 3. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the order dated 21-05-2005 passed by respondent no. 1 Additional District Judge/ FTC IV Dehradun, rejecting the application nos. 77 C and 75 C for amendment In written statement and ground of revision moved by defendant revisionist In SCCR No. 39 of 2001 pending before the respondent no. 1. The facts of the case are that on 12-06-1990, plaintiff filed a suit no. 3 of 1990 before Judge, Small Causes Court against the defendants / revisionists (petitioners) for arrears of rent and ejectment on the ground of default In payment of rent In respect of part of the property no. 32, Raja Road, Dehradun. One Sri Brahmanand was the tenant in part of the house No. 32 consisting of one room, kothari, one small verandah, latrine, bathroom and chabutra @ Rs. 12/- per month. The rent was enhanced later on from Rs. 12/- to Rs. 25 per month. After the death of Sri Brahmanand, his legal heirs became .the tenant In the said property @ Rs. 25/per month. According to learned counsel for the petitioners plaintiff / respondent gave wrong details of the property which Is In the tenancy of the defendants / petitioners, as the accommodation with the defendants, which has been mentioned in the plaint about two rooms Is neither In the tenancy of the defendants nor lying on the spot. The said suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement and In the written statement the defendants denied the allegations made in the plaint. The said suit was decreed on 24-04-2001 by Civil Judge (Senior Division)/7th ADJ/FTC VIII, Dehradun. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 24-04-2001, the petitioners defendants filed SCCR No. 39 of 2001 before the District Judge, Dehradun and the case Is still pending before respondent no.1. In the aforesaid revision, the defendants moved application Nos. 75 C and 77 C under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the written statement as well as in the grounds of revision. Plaintiff / respondent filed objection no. In the aforesaid revision, the defendants moved application Nos. 75 C and 77 C under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the written statement as well as in the grounds of revision. Plaintiff / respondent filed objection no. 79 C and 80 C. One application no. 70 C for inspection of the spot by the court was moved by the defendants and the same is still pending. However, respondent no.1 rejected the applications No. 75 and 77 vide order dated 21-05-2005. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that amendment sought by the petitioners will not change the nature of the case and in fact, there Is no finding of the Revisional Court that the amendment sought by the petitioners will change the nature of the case, still the respondent no.1 rejected the amendment application of the defendants petitioners. He has further submitted that Order VI Rule 17 of CPC provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such a 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. However, the learned lower court has Ignored the correct preposition of law while rejecting the amendment application. He has further submitted that amendment cannot be rejected on the ground of delay and amendment sought by the petitioners are simply explanatory In nature. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgements reported in AIR 1984 Patna page 158 (Ram Prasad Mahton and others Vs. Babu Jagoo Mahton and others); 2005 (59) ALR page 78 (Murari Lal Vs. 5th Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar and others) and 2004 (56) ALR 724 (Pankaja and another Vs. Yellappa (D) by L. Rs and others). 7. The Authority "AIR 1984 Patna page 158" cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is prior to the amendment made in CPC and as such, is not applicable in the present case. 8. In the case reported in 2004 (56) ALR 724 (Pankaja and another Vs. Yellappa (D) by L.Rs. Yellappa (D) by L. Rs and others). 7. The Authority "AIR 1984 Patna page 158" cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is prior to the amendment made in CPC and as such, is not applicable in the present case. 8. In the case reported in 2004 (56) ALR 724 (Pankaja and another Vs. Yellappa (D) by L.Rs. and others) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that so far as court's jurisdiction to allow the amendment of pleading Is concerned, there can be no two opinions that the same Is wide enough to permit amendments even in cases where there has been substantial delay in filing such amendment applications. The Apex Court In numerous caSeS has held that the dominant purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation, therefore, if the facts of the case so permit, it is always open to the court to allow applications In spite of the delay and latches in moving such amendment application. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the jurisdiction to allow or not allow an amendment being discretionary, the same will have to be exercised in a judicious evaluation of the facts and circumstances' in which the amendment is sought. If the granting of an amendment, really sub serves the ultimate cause of the justice and avoids further litigation the same should be allowed. There can be no straight jacket formula for allowing or disallowing an amendment of pleadings. Each case depends on the factual background of that case. 10. In the aforesaid case, the appellants filed a suit before the Principal Civil Judge, Shimoga. During the pendency of the suit the respondent in violation of the order further encroached In the suit property to the extent of. 15 feet x 15 feet. Therefore, the appellants sought for an amendment of the plaint seeking for possession of the suit encroached area also. The application was allowed by the Trial Court. In the written statement, a plea was raised that suit for Injunction and possession without seeking a declaration of title was not maintainable. Realizing that a prayer for declaration on the facts of the case was essential, the appellants filed application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC by adding prayer to declare that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit scheduled property. Realizing that a prayer for declaration on the facts of the case was essential, the appellants filed application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC by adding prayer to declare that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit scheduled property. This application was rejected by the Principle Civil Judge, on the ground that application was filed after six years. A revision was preferred before the High Court and. the same was dismissed. Thereafter, a Review Petition was preferred .and 'the same was also dismissed by the High Court. The order of the High Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the amendment application and directed the Trial Court to frame necessary issues and decide the same In accordance with law. It Is well settled law that amendment should not be rejected on .the ground of delay and has further held that dominant purpose of allowing the amendment application Is to minimize the litigation, therefore, If the facts of the case so permit, it is always open to the court to allow the applications in spite of delay and latches in moving such amendment applications. 11. In the aforesaid case, the amendment application was moved by the petitioners before the Trial court though It was moved after six years. 12. In the present case, the suit was filed on 12-06-1990 before the Judge, Small Causes Court and the same was decreed on 24-04-2001. Revision was filed by the petitioners on 23-05-2001 where as tile amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC was filed before the Revisional Court on 07-052005. Since allowing or rejecting the amendment application Is discretionary power but the discretion should be used judiciously, depending upon the facts of each case. 13. An amendment has been Incorporated In Order VI Rule 17 of CPC by adding the proviso with effect from 01-07-2002, which reads 'as under: "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. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the suit was flied on 12-06-1990 by the respondent no. 2 before the Judge, Small Causes Court, which was decreed on 24-04-2001. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the suit was flied on 12-06-1990 by the respondent no. 2 before the Judge, Small Causes Court, which was decreed on 24-04-2001. Aggrieved by the order dated 24-04-2001, Revision has been filed by the petitioners, In which he has moved an amendment application and as such, as provided In proviso of, Order VI Rule 17 of CPC that after commencement of the trial the amendment cannot be allowed and learned Revision Court has rightly rejected the amendment application moved by the petitioners. 15. I do not find force In the submission of learned counsel for respondent that the trial has commenced so amendment application cannot be allowed. The amendment application can be allowed even after commencement of the trial, If 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. The court must come to the conclusion that the party, who has sought the amendment was not able to seek proposed amendment prior to moving present amendment application. Thus, while allowing amendment application the court must consider the fact that allowing or disallowing the amendment application Is discretionary but at the same time the discretion should be 'used Judiciously. The court should satisfy Itself that the amendment sought, If allowed, shall minimize the litigation. The court must also come to the' conclusion before allowing the amendment application that amendment sought is necessary to resolve the real question In controversy. The court must also come to the' conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party who Is seeking amend merit could not have raised the matter prior to moving of amendment application. From the perusal of record, It appears that the petitioners filed amendment application, which was numbered as 116C before Small Causes Court to amend the written statement and the same was allowed and para 16 A was added by way of amendment in the objection filed by the defendant. Para 16A which was Incorporated after amendment ,Is as under : HINDI 16, After the suit was decreed the petitioners have moved amendment application and the amendment sought by him is as under : "That in Revision on page 2 in para 9 after the word" was never enhanced to Rs. 200/- the following be added as under :- That the respondent no. 200/- the following be added as under :- That the respondent no. 1 never made an improvement in the residential accommodation of the revisionist on the other hand the respondent no.1 curtailed the residential accommodation of the revisionist after taken open courtyard and two latrines at the time of partition with his brother Sri Jitendra Nagalia, without verandah. It is not possible to use the room and kothri (small room) the respondent no.1 closed the verandah and curtailed the part portion of the tenancy open courtyard and latrines for the effective portion and for making his privacy against which the respondent no. 1 constructed a flash latrine and a boundary wall at the western and southern edge of the chabutra after closing the verandah from eastern side." 17. The Revisional Court while rejecting the application for amendment has given categorical finding that amendment sought by the defendant is the same, which has been allowed by the Trial Court and the same was incorporated before Trial Court and as such, it is not necessary now for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties, The Revisional Court has further held that the amendment application moved by the defendant is not bona fide and has been moved just to delay the proceedings. In the amendment application moved by the defendant he has not stated that why the amendment sought now could not be moved before and as such, could not show due diligence, Further application No. 70 C moved by the defendants / petitioners before the Revisional Court for spot inspection is still pending before the Revisional Court, Considering all these facts, the learned Revisional Court has rejected the amendment application. 18. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and consequently, the writ petition is dismissed, No order as to costs.