( 1 ) CIVIL Revision has been filed questioning the validity of the order dated 24. 10. 2008 passed by the Additional District Court No. 5 rejecting amendment application in JCC Suit No. 2 of 2006 and order dated 25. 11. 2008 rejecting review application moved against the same. Brief background of the proceedings are that JCC Suit No. 2 of 2006 had been filed for arrears of rent and ejectment. In the said suit, written statement had been filed on 27. 4. 2006. In the said suit revisionist moved amendment application on 4. 10. 2008, said amendment application was rejected on 24. 10. 2008. Against the same review application was moved and said review application has been rejected on 25. 11. 2008. ( 2 ) SRI V. D. Agarwal, learned counsel for the revisionist has assailed the validity of the said order rejecting amendment application primarily on the question that in JCC Suit No. 4 of 2006 and JCC Suit No. 5 of 2006 on similar nature, amendment application had been allowed and as such amendment application moved on behalf of the revisionist also ought to have been allowed and as such present civil revision is liable to be allowed. ( 3 ) IN the present case order dated 24. 10. 2008 has been perused. Order dated 24. 10. 2008 specifically takes note of the fact that in the present case since last two years directives have been on going and deliberately and intentionally witnesses were not being examined and the matter was being delayed on one pretext or other. JCC Court has categorically denied that amendment application is also motivated one to delay the proceeding. In the present case JCC court has clearly mentioned that whatever evidence has been sought to be adduced on record, as far as evidence are concerned, qua the same, it is not at all required to be pleaded. Once factual position is that J. C. C. Court has categorically recorded findings that amendment application is motivated one to delay the proceeding, then clearly it is malafide motive on the part of the revisionist, as part of dilatory part. Once factual position is that J. C. C. Court has categorically recorded findings that amendment application is motivated one to delay the proceeding, then clearly it is malafide motive on the part of the revisionist, as part of dilatory part. Coupled with this also categorical mention has been made that evidence are not to be concluded in the present case and whatever averments have been sought to be are in the shape of evidence and can be very well lead the evidence, amendment is not at all required. ( 4 ) APART from this in the present case provision of Order 6 Rule 17 are being extracted below:-Rule 17. Amendment of pleadings- The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties; provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. ( 5 ) PERUSAL of order would go to show that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In the present case this fact has not disputed that trial is commenced, as witnesses had come forward and since last two years, revisionist have been delaying the proceeding by not cross examining the witnesses. In this background, once nothing has come on record, which has been noted by the Judge Small Causes Court that in spite of due diligence, party cannot raise matter before commencement of trial. Once such application cannot be allowed, as matter of course after trial is commenced, then in this background view taken by the court below rejecting amendment application on cogent reason, cannot be said to be unjustified. On all these merit of matter, no address had been made by the revisionist and entire emphasis has been that in respect of other two suits, earlier similar amendment application has been allowed. On all these merit of matter, no address had been made by the revisionist and entire emphasis has been that in respect of other two suits, earlier similar amendment application has been allowed. In the present case, present order in hand, has been passed as per statutory requirement. Order in question does not reflect that court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction not vested or if they fail to exercise power so vested, exercise reflected with material illegality, then authority vested under section 115 C. P. C cannot be exercised and the order in question if allow to failure of justice or cause irreparable loss and injury. ( 6 ) IN the present case, as per own admission of revisionist in paragraph 11 of the written statement, he has already taken stand that building in question not come under U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and then in case qua the same he intends to lead the evidence, then he always do the same and he can always amendment proceeding. As far as amendment of proceedings are concerned, same are not required, as evidence is not necessarily to be made part of the pleading in this background. Consequently, present revision is dismissed. .