ORDER Heard, Plaintiff-opposite party No.1 has appeared. 2. The present application has been filed by defendant No.5 whose amendment application was partly allowed and partly disallowed. It is not disputed that the suit was filed in the year 2004. The defendants filed their written statements. Issues were framed. Evidence of plaintiff's witnesses have closed. Evidence upto defendant No.3 have closed. At this stage, defendant No.5 filed the present amendment application which was primarily in two parts. By the first party, they sought to bring on record a document purporting to be of the year 1917 on which they assert they had no knowledge of its correct contents as it was scribed in Urdu. To this extent, amendment has been allow the other part is leading to a genealogical table and averments in respect of ancestry of the petitioner this part has been disallowed. The counsel for the plaintiff submits that the genealogy, which has now been propounded, is contrary to his own admission in the written statement. He moreover submits that in view of amendment made to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act 2002, such an amendment at this late stage of trial is not permissible. I have considered the matter and heard the parties. 3. In so far as the first part which was allowed by the trial Court is concerned, it was rightly allowed as a document has been discovered and understood at a late stage but so far as the second part of amendment is concerned, it is the genealogy of the petitioner's family which cannot be said to be unknown to the defendant himself. The other paragraphs are related to averments in relation to the said genealogy. 4. I find no error of jurisdiction in the order of the trial court and, accordingly, this application is dismissed.