JUDGMENT : - Heard learned counsel Mr.R.F. Totala for the Petitioners and Mr.A.S. Bajaj, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. The Petitioners are the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.106 of 2003 and the Respondents are the defendants. The parties, hereinafter, are referred to their status in the said suit, for convenience. 3. The defendant No.1 - filed an application seeking amendment to the written statement. Copy of the application is annexed as Annexure - G with this petition. This application for amendment, to the written statement is filed on 22nd July, 2005. 4. The plaintiffs filed their reply, opposing the application, seeking amendment Exhibit - 99. Copy of the said reply is also on record at Exhibit - H. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the application filed by the Defendant No.1, by its order dated 2nd February ,2006, passed below Exhibit - 99 in the said suit. 5. Learned counsel Mr.Totala strenuously urged that the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon is per - se illegal. He points out that the affidavit, by way of evidence, on behalf of the plaintiffs, undisputedly, is filed on 14th March, 2005. This application, being subsequent to the commencement of recording of the evidence, according to him, is not in accord with the proviso of Order 6, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code. No ground is established for entertaining such an application, at this belated stage. Learned Counsel Mr.Bajaj supports the order passed by the trial Court. He has invited my attention to the circumstances leading the defendant No.1 to file this application on 22nd July, 2005. He, however, admits that the affidavit is filed on behalf of the plaintiffs on 14th March, 2005. 6. In para No.6 of the application Exhibit - 99, it is alleged that after happenings referred to in para No.5, the parties kept discussing amongst themselves about some issues and at times there used to be mediators in the family members and included Vrajlal Patel and B. J. Patel, the brothers of Mr. A. J. Patel and Mr. P. J. Patel. The parties have experienced difficulties and had decided to refer some points, each raising his own points differently to B. J. Patel. In para 8, subsequent happenings, when Mr.B. J. Patel was acting as Arbitrator have been alleged. Ultimately, it is alleged that Mr. A. J. Patel and Mr. P. J. Patel. The parties have experienced difficulties and had decided to refer some points, each raising his own points differently to B. J. Patel. In para 8, subsequent happenings, when Mr.B. J. Patel was acting as Arbitrator have been alleged. Ultimately, it is alleged that Mr. B. J. Patel refused to arbitrate and totally abandoned the arbitration proceedings, as was the impression of the defendant No.1. It is further pleaded in para 9, that there was marriage of daughter of Mr.B.J. Patel on 3rd June, 2005. Ultimately, it is alleged that the arbitration of B. J. Patel was also failed at this stage. According to the defendant No.1, these developments have occurred partly during the pendency of the suit and before filing of the affidavit. Because of these developments, the defendant No.1 was required to file an application seeking amendment to the written statement. 7. The trial Court has referred to the earlier written statement filed by the defendants. It is observed by the trial Court that the defendants in earlier written statement specifically mentioned about the memorandum of understanding which took place between the parties and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot be taken by surprise. In respect of proof of the document, the trial Court has observed that, in case the amendment is allowed the proof of the document cannot be said to have been dispensed with. The burden will be upon the party producing the document to prove its admissibility. Unless the documents are proved they cannot be read in evidence. Regarding the grievance raised on behalf of the plaintiffs, pertaining to the forged document, it is observed by the trial Court that the plaintiffs will have an opportunity in this respect, while considering these documents in the evidence. The argument on behalf of the plaintiffs that the defence is trying to make out a new case, was turned down justifiably, by the trial Court. The submission of the plaintiffs that the application is filed at belated stage, was also not accepted by the trial Court. 8. The provision laid down under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, confers a jurisdiction on the Court, while considering an application for amendment. Undisputedly, amendment application can be moved in, at any stage of the proceedings. 8. The provision laid down under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, confers a jurisdiction on the Court, while considering an application for amendment. Undisputedly, amendment application can be moved in, at any stage of the proceedings. In view of the proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial, such amendment can be considered. In the present case, as noted above, the defendant No.1 has alleged in the application that some happenings did take place during the pendency of the suit. In this view of the matter, in my view, trial Court has justifiably exercised the discretion and allowed the application filed by the defendant No.1, seeking amendment; to the written statement. 9. Learned counsel Mr.Totala has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of "Shrimoni Gurdwara Committee Vs. Jaswant Singh", in SLP (C) No.16795 of 1996, in support of his submissions. The Apex Court, while considering the order passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 17th May, 1996 in Civil Revision Application No. 1023 of 1996, noted the facts that the issues therein, in that matter, were raised, evidence was adduced and at the end of the trial, the Petitioner had filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. At the cost of repetition, it is to be noted, in the present case, the application seeking amendment is filed on 22nd July, 2005 and stage of the suit, undisputedly, is recording of evidence of the plaintiffs alone. Plaintiffs had filed an affidavit on 14th March, 2005. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the facts in the cited judgment are not applicable to the facts in the case on hand. One more judgment is referred to on behalf of the Petitioners. It is in the matter of "Suraj Prakash Bhasin Vs. Smt. Raj Rani Bhasin and others" Civil Appeal No.1953 of 1978. Copy of this judgment is made available by the learned counsel Mr.Totala. In this matters, issues were settled by the Court. One more judgment is referred to on behalf of the Petitioners. It is in the matter of "Suraj Prakash Bhasin Vs. Smt. Raj Rani Bhasin and others" Civil Appeal No.1953 of 1978. Copy of this judgment is made available by the learned counsel Mr.Totala. In this matters, issues were settled by the Court. Two years have been passed over and thereafter the Respondent (plaintiff) woke up and made an application seeking amendment in the shape of additional reliefs and also supportive averments. This application was allowed by the trial Court. Said order was challenged by filing Civil Revision Application before the High Court. The High Court had maintained the order and that is how the S.L.P. was before the Apex Court. The Apex Court, in para 6 of the judgment, laid down the principles guiding the exercise of discretion in allowing the amendments. The Apex Court held: "6. The liberal principles which guide the exercise of discretion in allowing amendments have been laid down in numerous decisions of this Court. Multiplicity of proceedings being avoided is one criterion. Amendments which do not totally alter the character of the action are readily granted while care is taken to see that injustice and prejudice of an irremediable character are not inflicted on the opposite party under pretence of amendment of pleadings. The Court must be guided by the rule of justice expressed by the Privy Council in Ma Shwe Mya V. Maung Po Hnaung (AIR 1922 PC 249, 25051; (See Commentaries on C.P.C., 1908, 9th Edn. Vol.2, PP. 1283 - 84). All rules of court are nothing but provisions intended to secure the proper administration of justice and it is, therefore, essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose, so that full powers of amendment must be enjoyed and should always be liberally exercised, but nonetheless, no power has yet been given to enable one distinct cause of action to be substituted for another, nor to change, by means of amendment, the subject matter of the suit." Ultimately the Apex Court dismissed the S.L.P. 10. From the judgment of the trial Court, in the present case, it appears that the application is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/ - , to be paid by the defendant No.1. From the judgment of the trial Court, in the present case, it appears that the application is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/ - , to be paid by the defendant No.1. In this view of the matter, in my view, the trial Court has justifiably exercised the discretion while allowing the application seeking amendment to the written statement. No case for interference, in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, is established. Writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed in limine. 11. The observations made in this order, are relating to the application filed by the defendant. No.1 seeking amendment and the provision laid down under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. Petition dismissed.