Judgment Heard Sri T.A. Khan and Sri Rajesh Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner at length as well as learned Standing Counsel, Sri Bhupendra Singh and perused the record. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30-10-2006 (Annexure No.1) passed by the respondent nO.1 in Civil Suit No. 20 of 1995. Petitioner has further prayed for allowing its application for amendment in the written statement, bearing no. 124-Ka (Annexure No.5) in Civil Suit No. 20 of 1995 pending before the respondent no. 1. By the impugned order dated 30-10-2006, the learned trial court has rejected the application paper no. 124~Ka of the petitioner for permission to amend its pleadings in the written statement. 3. Relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff - respondent nos. 2 to 4 filed Civil Suit No. 20 of 1995 against the defendant-petitioner for a decree of permanent injunction. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing its written statement and according to the defendant petitioner, a plea was taken therein that the land in question was owned by the State of U.P. and belonged to the Forest Department, therefore, the Forest Department was a necessary party. Consequently, on the direction of the court, the plaintiff-respondents amended the plaint and State of Uttaranchal and Divisional Forest Officer concerned were arrayed as defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the possession of land measuring about 0.6 acre was handed over to the petitioner by the Forest Department, but the physical possession of the disputed premises could not be handed over due to pendency of the suit. Copy of the document in that regard is dated 10-6-2001, which has been annexed as Annexure No. 4-A to the writ petition. The defendant-petitioner has moved application for amendment of its pleadings by adding a new paragraph no. 11 under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 31-5-2006, which was rejected by the trial court vide its order dated 30-10-2006 impugned in this writ petition. Hence, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition. 4. The admitted facts of the case are that the suit was filed before the trial court as back as 8-2-1995 and the written statement was filed by the petitioner-defendant no.1 as early as 21-2-1997. Hence, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition. 4. The admitted facts of the case are that the suit was filed before the trial court as back as 8-2-1995 and the written statement was filed by the petitioner-defendant no.1 as early as 21-2-1997. It is not disputed that the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed on 20-4-2005 and the case is fixed for evidence of the defendants. The application for amendment of written statement was moved only on 31-5-2006 after commencement of trial. 5. The defendant no.1-petitioner has filed the copy of document whereby possession of 0.6 acre forest land was given in its favour on 10-6-2001 as Annexure 4-A, on the basis of which the petitioner has been seeking amendment of its pleadings by adding a new paragraph no. 11-A. The same is reproduced as under : "That on 10-6-2001 the possession of 0.6 Acre land has been handed over to the defendant no.-1. But the physical possession of the premises in suit claimed by the plaintiffs only could not be delivered to the defendant no.-1 due to the pendency of suit in this Hon'ble Court." 6. The trial court after considering the submissions made by the defendant-petitioner has dismissed the application paper no. 124-Ka by a detailed order. 7. It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court has committed a manifest error in dismissing the application for amendment. I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the following reasons. 8. The document dated 10-6-2001 was very much in possession of the defendant and the document was fully within the knowledge of the defendant. It is very interesting to note that until the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed on 20-2-2005, the defendant-petitioner never chose to amend the pleadings on the basis of that document. I have perused the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the C.P.C. moved before the trial court. From a bare reading of this application, it is obvious that no reason has been set out by the defendant nO.1 for not seeking the amendment from 10-6-2001 till 31-5-2006. I have perused the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the C.P.C. moved before the trial court. From a bare reading of this application, it is obvious that no reason has been set out by the defendant nO.1 for not seeking the amendment from 10-6-2001 till 31-5-2006. There is no whisper at all even remotely in the said application as to why the defendant was prevented from raising the plea earlier between the intervening period, especially when the document was very much in possession of the defendant immediately after 10-6-2001. In the circumstances of the case, non-seeking of appropriate amendment at appropriate stage as provided under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. disentitles the defendant no.1-petitioner to any relief. The amendment of written statement cannot be permitted after trial starts in view of Proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 C.PC. It was for the defendant to prove that in spite of due diligence, it could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. I am supported by the Apex Court verdict in the case of "Ajendraprasad ji N. Pande & Anr. V. Swami Keshav prakesh das ji N. & Ors." [2007 AIR SCW, 513]. In the reported case, the respondents filed Civil Suit No. 144 of 2002 in the Court of Civil Judge at Bhavnagar against the present appellants. The suit was subsequently withdrawn and the same was presented in the Court of Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), where it was numbered as Special Civil Suit No. •190 of 2002. The said suit was also withdrawn and the plaint was again presented in the Court of Civil Judge at Nadiad, which was numbered as Special Civil Suit No. 156 of 2002. The defendant-appellants moved an application for amendment on 24-11-2005 in the written submissions in Special Civil Suit No. 156 of 2002. Civil Judge dismissed the amendment application of the appellants on the ground that the trial has commenced and the appellants were not due diligent in preferring the amendment application. The appellants approached the High Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 1380 of 2006, which was dismissed on the ground that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. The appellants went up before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition. The appellants approached the High Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 1380 of 2006, which was dismissed on the ground that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited. The appellants went up before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition. The Apex Court after dealing with the provisions of Proviso to Order 6, Rule 17, of the C.P.C. has held that "Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), O.6, R. 17, Proviso-Amendment of written statement-Bar after trial begins-Amendment sought after evidence of 3 witnesses was over and documentary evidence was tendered- Application of defendants to recast issues had also been dismissed. No grounds raised in application to show that despite diligence matter could not be raised earlier- Facts moreover showing otherwise- Granting amendment at such stage would cause serious prejudice to plaintiff-Moreso when amendment seeks to introduce new and totally inconsistent case." and it was further held that "Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), 0.6.17, Proviso- Amendment of written statement-Bar after trial starts- Commencement of trial Trial commence when issues are settled and the case is set down for recording of evidence." The appeal of the defendant-appellants was ultimately dismissed by the Apex Court. 9. Moreover, admittedly in the case at hand, the evidence of the plaintiff-respondents have already been closed and the suit is posted for evidence of the defendants since 20-22005 and the defendant-petitioner thereafter chose to seek amendment in the written statement only on 31-5-2006 without assigning any reasons in the application that he could not move the same in spite of due diligence, as has been provided in Proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. I am fully convinced that the learned Trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner-defendant no. 1 thereby dismissing the application for amendment of written statement (paper no. 124-Ka). Even from a remote consideration of the matter, I do not find any perversity having been committed by the trial court. There is no force in the writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed outright at the admission stage. 10. The writ petition is dismissed in-limine. No order as to costs.