Judgment Animadverting upon the order dated 210. 2008 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhavani, Erode District in I.A.No.278 of 2008 in O.S.No.12 of 2006, this civil revision petition is focussed. 2. An epitome and resume of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit O.S.No.12 of 2006 seeking the following reliefs: declaring the plaintiff title to the suit property restraining the defendants, their men and agents from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by means of a permanent injunction. The defendants filed their written statement; the trial was also conducted and concluded and the matter was posted for judgment; while so, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.278 of 2008 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission of the Court to get the plaint amended so as to correct the Survey Number as well as the measurement; whereupon, after hearing both the sides, the lower court dismissed the said application. Being disconcerted by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this revision has been focussed on various grounds, inter alia thus: The lower Court instead of allowing the said application simply dismissed it on the ground that the plaintiff had intended to delay the proceedings. The lower court also failed to consider that the survey Number is of vital importance to prove the case of the plaintiff. Accordingly, she prayed for setting aside the order of the lower court and for allowing the I.A. 3. Despite printing the name of the learned counsel on both sides, no one represented. 4. The lower court also failed to consider that the survey Number is of vital importance to prove the case of the plaintiff. Accordingly, she prayed for setting aside the order of the lower court and for allowing the I.A. 3. Despite printing the name of the learned counsel on both sides, no one represented. 4. A bare poring over and perusal of the order of the lower court and the typed set of papers would demonstrate and display, exemplify and evince that the suit was filed in the year 2006 and thereafter the plaint was also amended twice; when the matter was posted for judgment, the plaintiff came forward with such an application; the lower Court in its order at para No.9 has succinctly and precisely set forth and put forth the relevant facts, which transpired during trial as under: Angammal purchased the property from one Ananda Asary, who had right over the land in S.F.No.18/2 as per patta; subsequently Angammal executed a Will in favour of the plaintiffs vendor, who executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff; whereas the plaintiff would contend that the survey number as well as the measurements are found wrongly mentioned in her sale deed; however, the lower Court observed that the four boundaries are found mentioned in the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and it is for her to prove and establish that the land within the said four boundaries belonged to her. At the fag end of the suit, the plaintiff cannot rely on some settlement deed and try to gain support. 5. I could see sound ratiocination adopted and adhered to by the lower Court. It is for the plaintiff to prove her case with reference to the boundaries. If what are all the plaintiff averred, is true, on her side, as per the available records it is for the Court to decide. Hence, she cannot on some ground get the plaint amended. The laches on the part of the plaintiff cannot be tolerated and that too, in a matter of this nature. The affidavit accompanying the I.A would evince and exemplify that it is not as though the plaintiff was not aware of certain defects in her own sale deed. 6. At this juncture, my mind is reminiscent and redolent of the decision of the Honble Apex Court reported in 2008(4) TNLJ 588(Civil)-Vidyabai And Others Vs. The affidavit accompanying the I.A would evince and exemplify that it is not as though the plaintiff was not aware of certain defects in her own sale deed. 6. At this juncture, my mind is reminiscent and redolent of the decision of the Honble Apex Court reported in 2008(4) TNLJ 588(Civil)-Vidyabai And Others Vs. Padmalatha And Another. Certain excerpts from it would run thus: "7. By reason of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 22 of 2002), the Parliament inter alia inserted a proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, which reads as under: "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." It is couched in a mandatory form. The courts jurisdiction to allow such an application is taken away unless the conditions precedent therefore are satisfied, viz., it must come to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. 8. From the order passed by the learned Trial Judge, it is evident that the respondents had not been able to fulfill the said pre-condition. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is as to whether the trial had commenced or not. In our opinion, it did. The date on which the issues are framed is the date of first hearing. Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure envisage taking of various steps at different stages of the proceeding. Filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the witness, in our opinion, would amount to commencement of proceeding. 9. Although in a different context, a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India and others v. Major General Madal Lal Yadav (Retd) ([1996] 4 SCC 127) took note of the dictionary meaning of the terms trial and commence to opine: 19. It would, therefore, be clear that trial means act of proving or judicial examination or determination of the issues including its own jurisdiction or authority in accordance with law or adjudging guilt or innocence of the accused including all steps necessary thereto. The trial commences with the performance of the first act or steps necessary or essential to proceed with the trial. The trial commences with the performance of the first act or steps necessary or essential to proceed with the trial. The High Court, as noticed hereinbefore, opined that filing of an affidavit itself would not mean that the trial has commenced. 10. Order XVIII, Rule 4(1) of the Code reads as under: "4.Recording of evidence (1) In every case, the examination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who claim for evidence:Provided that where documents are filed and the parties rely upon the documents, the proof and admissibility of such documents which are filed along with affidavit shall be subject to the orders of the Court." 11.This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in Ameer Trading Corpn.Ltd.v. Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd.([2004] 1 SCC 702) in the following terms: "15.The examination of a witness would include evidence-in-chief, cross-examination or re-examination. Rule 4 Order 18 speaks of examination-in-chief. The unamended rule provided for the manner in which "evidence" is to be taken. Such examination-in-chief of a witness in every case shall be on affidavit. 16. The aforementioned provision has been made to curtail the time taken by the Court in examining a witness-in-chief. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for cross-examination and re-examination of a witness which shall be taken by the Court or the Commissioner appointed by it." In Kailash v. Nanhku ([2005] 4 SCC 480), this Court held: "13. At this point the question arises:when does the trial of an election petition commence or what is the meaning to be assigned to the word trial in the context of an election petition? In a civil suit, the trial begins when issues are framed and the case is set down for recording of evidence. All the proceedings before that stage are treated as proceedings preliminary to trial or for making the case ready for trial. As held by this Court in several decided cases, this general rule is not applicable to the trial of election petitions as in the case of election petitions, all the proceedings commencing with the presentation of the election petition and up to the date of decision therein are included within the meaning of the word trial. As held by this Court in several decided cases, this general rule is not applicable to the trial of election petitions as in the case of election petitions, all the proceedings commencing with the presentation of the election petition and up to the date of decision therein are included within the meaning of the word trial. We may notice that in Ajendraprasadji N.Pandey and Another v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. And Others ([2006] 12 SCC 1), this Court noticed the decision of this Court in Kailash (supra) to hold: 35. By Act 46 of 1999, there was a sweeping amendment by which Rules 17 and 18 were wholly omitted so that an amendment itself was not permissible, although sometimes effort was made to rely on Section 148 for extension of time for any purpose. 36. Ultimately, to strike a balance the legislature applied its mind and reintroduced Rule 17 by Act 22 of 2002 w.e.f.7. 2002. It had a provision permitting amendment as described therein. But it also had a total bar introduced by a proviso which prevented any application for amendment to be allowed after the trial had commenced unless the Court came to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. It is this proviso which falls for consideration." As such, the dictum laid down by the Honble Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Hence, I could see no merit in this civil revision petition and accordingly the same is dismissed confirming the order passed by the lower Court in I.A.No.278 of 2008. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.