Judgment 1. Both the aforesaid cases are being heard together and they are being disposedof by this common order as they arise out of common order passed in analogous matrimonial cases. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner is the wife who had filed Matrimonial Case No. 48 of 1980 for restitution of conjugal rights against her husband. She was also the defendant in Matrimonial Case No. 226 of 1980, which was filed by the husband-opposite party for dissolution of marriage at Delhi, but the said case was transferred by the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court to the learned court below at Patna, where it was numbered as Matrimonial Case No. 51 of 1984. 4. In both the aforesaid cases the petitioner (wife) had filed petitions dated 16.1.2004 and 23.2.2004 for amendment of her pleadings in both the cases by way of addition of a full paragraph therein. These petitions have been rejected by the impugned common order dated 27.7.2004 in both the aforementioned matrimonial cases by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna. 5. It is an admitted fact that evidence of both the parties have been closed and the matrimonial cases are fixed for argument. By the proposed amendment the wife (petitioner) wants to bring on record a claim that the husband had already married another lady much earlier and from her he had two children, but in her amendment petitions the petitioner had no where stated any reason for her filing the amendment petitions so belatedly. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended, clearly provides that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Here the trial has commenced much earlier and the evidence has already been closed and there is nothing on record to show that inspite of due diligence the petitioner could not file amendment petitions earlier. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, specially when the same is a well considered order committing no illegality or jurisdictional error and accordingly both the civil revisions are dismissed. 7. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, specially when the same is a well considered order committing no illegality or jurisdictional error and accordingly both the civil revisions are dismissed. 7. However, if the petitioner wants to raise this issue, she may raise the same at the appellate stage.