Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Keshav Srivastava, learned senior counsel for the petitioners plaintiffs and Mr. Ram Balak Mahto learned senior counsel for the contesting defendants-opposite party. 2. The present revision application is directed against the order of the trial court whereby the trial court has allowed the amendment sought for by the defendants in the written statement. The undisputed facts are that the suit was filed in the year 1982. The defendants on notice appeared and filed their written statements on 29.9.1983. Issues having been framed, the trial commenced. The plaintiffs examined eleven witnesses. At this stage after 20 years of filing of the written statement on 29.9.1983 contesting defendants-opposite party sought amendment of their written statement alleging that it was descriptive and clarificatory and did not change the nature of the suit. No where in the amendment application it was sought to be explained why amendment was sought for after twenty years. 3. On the contrary in the amendment application it has been specifically admitted that the filing of written statement was incomplete due to oversight and inadvertence. A rejoinder was filed by the plaintiffs objecting to the amendment on merits as well as on the ground that it was belated. I am not inclined to go into the question of merit but in view of newly introduced proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. the amendment could not have been allowed at this belated stage once trial has commenced without the Trial Judge noticing a case made out as per the proviso to the said rule. Moreover, there is no pleading to that effect. The learned Trial Judge erred and failed to exercise its jurisdiction and thereby committed a clear error in allowing the amendment application. The impugned order dated 19.3.2004 passed by the learned 6th sub-Judge, Patna, in T.S. No. 492 of 1982 is set aside leaving the parties to lead such evidence as admissible in law in course of trial. 4. The application is allowed. There will ba no order as to costs. 5. Needless to say that the suit being of the year 1982 the learned trial court will take all steps to dispose of the suit expeditiously.