Judgment C.K. Buch, J.—Heard Mr. P.T. Jasani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Respondent, though served, has opted not to appear and resist the petition. 2. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners, original defendants of Civil Suit No. 1435 of 1998, pending in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, have prayed that appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued quashing and setting aside the order under challenge dated 31st April, 2008, passed by the learned Presiding Judge of Court No. 6 of City Civil Court, Ahmedabad and have prayed that the defendants of the suit be permitted to amend the written statement as prayed under the Scheme of Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Learned trial Judge decided to reject the application praying for amendment of the written statement, on the ground of delay and the time gap between the date of marriage of original plaintiff-Vanlilaben Dipakkumar Patel and the date of application. The learned trial Judge has also considered that till the date of framing of the issues in the year 2008, amendment was not sought for. 4. Nature of amendment prayed for is subsequent event that had taken place in the year 2003. The defendants were able to get a certificate in the month of November, 2006 which certifies re-marriage of original plaintiff-Vanlilaben Patel with one Vinay Chaturvedi, son of Omprakash Chaturvedy. True it is that the very application could have been preferred earlier, but ultimate nature of the suit filed by the wife is for getting decree of divorce set aside alleging that this decree has been obtained in absentia/ex parte. Say of Mr. Jasani is that the respondent posed herself to be a divorcee in marriage proceedings that had taken place with Vinay Chaturvedi and therefore, amendment sought for by the present petitioners was relevant and the same being subsequent event to the suit filed, amendment ought to have been allowed. 5. Submission of Mr. Jasani is logical and legal. Application ought not to have been rejected keeping in mind the sanctity of the matter and the issue between the parties. By bringing crucial document on record, if it is possible for a party to uproot the plaintiff, then, in that eventuality, the Court should be liberal in granting amendment, so also in permitting a party to produce document. 6. Application ought not to have been rejected keeping in mind the sanctity of the matter and the issue between the parties. By bringing crucial document on record, if it is possible for a party to uproot the plaintiff, then, in that eventuality, the Court should be liberal in granting amendment, so also in permitting a party to produce document. 6. Provisions of Code of Civil Procedure in this regard are directory in nature and have to be applied as procedural norms with a view to do substantive justice. Simultaneously keeping in mind that none of the parties is trying to use these procedural norms to delay the proceeding, goal of the Court and party could be to see that justice is done expeditiously. In some cases, subsequent event, if is brought to the notice of the Court, it may bring the litigation either to permanent halt or to termination. The Apex Court, in the case of Ajendraprasadji N. Pande & Anr. vs. Swami Keshavprakashdasji N. & Ors., reported in AIR 2007 SC 806 , has observed that amendment of a written statement normally is barred after the trial starts. Trial commences when Issues are settled and the case is settled down for recording of evidence. It would be beneficial to reproduce hereunder relevant Paras-51, 52, 54, 56 and 57 of the said judgment. “51. In our opinion, the facts above-mentioned would also go to show that the appellants are lacking in bona fide in filing this special leave petition before this Court. It is also to be noticed that the High Court has recorded relevant points in its elaborate judgment dated 05.10.2005 and have been dealt with despite the opposition of the contesting respondents that these pleas were not taken in the written statement. Under these circumstances, non-seeking of appropriate amendment at appropriate stage in the manner envisaged by law has disentitled the appellants to any relief. The amendment, in our view, also seeks to introduce a totally new and inconsistent case. 52. We have carefully perused the pleadings and grounds which are raised in the amendment application preferred by the appellants at Exhibit 95. No facts are pleaded nor any grounds are raised in the amendment application to even remotely contend that despite exercise of due diligence these matters could not be raised by the appellants. 52. We have carefully perused the pleadings and grounds which are raised in the amendment application preferred by the appellants at Exhibit 95. No facts are pleaded nor any grounds are raised in the amendment application to even remotely contend that despite exercise of due diligence these matters could not be raised by the appellants. Under these circumstances, the case is covered by proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 and, therefore, the relief deserves to be denied. The grant of amendment at this belated stage when deposition and evidence of three witnesses is already over as well as the documentary evidence is already tendered, coupled with the fact that the appellants’ application at Exhibit 64 praying for re-casting of the issues having been denied and the said order never having been challenged by the appellants, the grant of the present amendment as sought for at this stage of the proceedings would cause serious prejudice to the contesting respondents - original plaintiffs and hence it is in the interest of justice that the amendment sought for be denied and the petition be dismissed. 54. It is submitted that the date of settlement of issues is the date of commencement of trial. [Kailash vs. Nankhu and Ors. (Supra)] Either treating the date of settlement of issues as date of commencement of trial or treating the filing of affidavit which is treated as examination-in- chief as date of commencement of trial, the matter will fall under proviso to Order 6, Rule 17, CPC. The defendant has, therefore, to prove that in spite of due diligence, he could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. We have already referred to the dates and events very elaborately mentioned in the counter- affidavit which proves lack of due diligence on the part of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (appellants). 56. In the instant case, the appeal was filed in the second round on 09.10.2002 as could be seen from the dates and events mentioned in the counter-affidavit. Special Leave Petition in this Court was filed on 07.07.2004. Additional written statement has been filed on 24.11.2005. Delay in filing the additional written statement from 09.10.2002 to 24.11.2005. From 09.10.2002, the matters sought to be introduced by defendant by way of additional written statement was known to defendant/appellant. Special Leave Petition in this Court was filed on 07.07.2004. Additional written statement has been filed on 24.11.2005. Delay in filing the additional written statement from 09.10.2002 to 24.11.2005. From 09.10.2002, the matters sought to be introduced by defendant by way of additional written statement was known to defendant/appellant. The application in respect of additional written statement does not make an unequivocal averment as to due diligence. The averment only reads as follows:— “Under the circumstances, the facts which were submitted in the said Appeal from Order before the High Court and the facts which are now being submitted in the present application could not be submitted before this Court in spite of utmost care taken by the defendants.” 57. The above averment, in our opinion, does not satisfy the requirement of Order VI, Rule 17 without giving the particulars which would satisfy the requirement of law that the matters now sought to be introduced by the amendment could not have been raised earlier in respect of due diligence. As held by this Court in Kailash vs. Nankhu and Ors. (Supra), the trial is deemed to commence when the issues are settled and the case is set down for recording of evidence.” Ratio emerging from the above judgment is that in a given case, a pleading can be permitted to be amended if party is able to prove that in spite of due diligence he could not resist the matter before commencement of the trial. When it is pleaded specifically that event subsequent to the filing of the plaint or written statement could not be brought on record by way of amendment for reasons of certain constraints, then, according to me, approach of the Court should be liberal and pragmatic. In the present case, a positive statement was required to be made that the plaintiff-wife has remarried after filing of the suit and that too, after some years of filing of the suit. Such a statement, normally, could not be made unless any concrete documentary evidence is with the party intending to make such averment in the pleading. So, firstly, he shall have to make a reasonable effort to get or collect the evidence and only thereafter, he can approach the Court. As mentioned earlier, keeping in mind the date of filing of the suit and remarriage of the plaintiff wife, amendment was required to be allowed. So, firstly, he shall have to make a reasonable effort to get or collect the evidence and only thereafter, he can approach the Court. As mentioned earlier, keeping in mind the date of filing of the suit and remarriage of the plaintiff wife, amendment was required to be allowed. Ratio of the above judgment does not say that scheme is strictly mandatory and no amendment can be allowed after framing of the issues or on commencement of the trial. On the contrary, essence of the judgment is that normally after settlement of Issues, amendment could not be allowed as the same is likely to result into serious prejudice to other side. But on satisfaction, the Court may grant such amendment of subsequent event by ascertaining that by way of amendment, party does not seek to introduce new and totally inconsistent case. The Court is, therefore, inclined to allow this petition. 7. The petition is, therefore, allowed. Order dated 31.7.2008 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court No. 6 below application Exhibit 73 in Civil Suit No. 1435 of 1998 is hereby quashed and set aside. Amendment application Exhibit 73 preferred by the petitioners stands allowed. Necessary amendment, now, shall be carried out by the petitioners in the written statement as sought for in application Exhibit 73 and the learned trial Judge, now, shall recast the Issues and decide the matter on merits. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service permitted.