By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the or­der dated 03.03.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Sultanpur in original suit No. 63 of 2007 Ghanshyam Das v. Naseem. 2. Heard Shri. M.E. Khan, learned coun­sel for the revisionists. 3. In brief, the facts of the present case are that the respondent had filed a suit (suit No. 63 of 2007) on 16.02.2007 for permanent in­junction and the same is pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Sultanpur. In the said suit, the present revi­sionist implcaded as respondent, filed a writ­ten statement. Thereafter, on behalf of the revisionist/respondent, an application for amendment was moved (copy of which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition) to which plaintiff filed their objection. After hearing the parties on application under Or­der VI Rule 17 moved by the respondent for amendment, the same was rejected by order dated 03.03.2010. Hence the present writ pe­tition. 4. Shri M.E. Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist while assailing the order dated 03.03.2010 passed by the court below in brief has submitted that revisionist by mistake en­gaged a criminal lawyer who filed a written statement on his behalf, although the revision­ist gave him all the necessary information in regard to change of trade mark which was to be incorporated and pleaded in the written statement but the same was not done by his counsel and written statement was drafted and filed in the court below. Thereafter, the said counsel avoided to conduct the case on be­half of the revisionist, as a result of which, revisionist engaged another counsel and on his advise, an application moved for amend­ment in order to incorporate certain facts as mentioned therein. The same was rejected by the court below on the ground that the revi­sionist was aware of the amendment sought prior to the filing of the written statement. 5. He further submits that the trial court, while passing the impugned order which is under challenge in the present case, has adopted a very hyper technical approach in rejecting the amendment application whereas as per the settled provision of law in regard­ing to the matter relating to amendment, the same should be dealt liberally and in the present case the amendment which is sought by revisionist does not change the nature of the case and so the same should be allowed. It was further submitted on behalf of the re­visionist that the court below had failed to consider the term due diligence which accord­ing to a dictionary meaning means as "doing everything reasonable not everything pos­sible". Accordingly, the order passed by the court below is arbitrary in nature and liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he relies on the following judgments:- [ 2008 (5) SCC 117 : ( AIR 2008 SC 2234 ) Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajendra Singh Anand], [ 2008 (8) SCC 511 : ( AIR 2008 SC 2139 ) North Eastern Railway Administration Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das] and [2003 (94) R.D. 148: ( AIR 2002 SC 3369 ) S.C. Sampath Kumar v. Ayyia Kannu and another]. 6. I have heard counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. 7. In order to resolve the controversy which is involved in the present case, it is necessary to state the following facts in brief. 8. The Order 6 Rule 17 CPC as exists be­fore 1999 is quoted as under: - "Order 6 Rule 17: "77. 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." The abovesaid provision was omitted by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 and after amendment read as follows: "16. Amendment of Order 6- In the First Schedule, in Order 6- *** ***** ***** ***** (iii) Rules 17 and 18 shall be omitted." The provision as it exists now after the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002 Order 6 Rule 17 "17. Amendment of pleadings- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading 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. Amendment of pleadings- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading 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 would not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." It is seen that before the amendment of Order 6 Rule 17 by Act 46 of 1999, the Court has taken a very wide view of the power to amend the pleadings including even the plaint as could be seen from L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co., AIR 1957 SC 357 : 1957 SCR 438 , SCR at 450 and Gurdial Singh v. Raj Kumar Aneja, (2002) 2 SCC 445 : AIR 2002 SC 1003 . 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. Ultimately, to strike a balance the legisla­ture applied its mind and reintroduced Rule 14 by Act 22 of 2002 w.e.f. 1-7-2002. It had a provision permitting amendment in the first part which said that the Court may at any stage permit 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 the proviso which falls for consideration." It is to be noted that the provisions of Or­der 6 Rule 17 CPC have been substantially amended by the CPC (Amendment) Act 2002. Under the proviso no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless in spite of due diligence, the matter could not be raised before the com­mencement of trial. Under the proviso no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless in spite of due diligence, the matter could not be raised before the com­mencement of trial. It is submitted, that after the trial of this case has been commenced, no application of pleading shall be allowed un­less the above requirement is satisfied." 9. In the case of Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another: ( AIR 2009 SC 1433 ) (supra) wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:- "By reason of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act,2002 (Act 22 of 2002) Parliament inter alia inserted a proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, which reads as undcn- "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 Court's jurisdiction to allow such an applica­tion is taken away unless the condition 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. It is the primal duty of the court to decide as to whether such an amendment is neces­sary to decide the real dispute between the parties. Only if such a condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to be allowed. However, proviso appended to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the court. It puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction. The Court's jurisdiction, in a case of this nature is limited. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment of the plaint." 10. Further in the case of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagaan Das (dead) by L.Rs.2008 (3) ARC 911: ( AIR 2008 SC 2139 : 2008 (4) ALJ 228) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "In so far as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing arnendments under Order VI, Rule 17 C.PC (as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order VI, Rule 17 C.PC. Order VI, Rule 17 C.PC. postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hpngonda Patil v. Kalgaonda Shidgonda Patil and others, AIR 1957 SC 363 , which still holds the field, it was held that all amend­ments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real ques­tion in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs.(Also see: Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar, (1990) 1 SCC 166 : 1990SCFBRC 134)". 11. Thus in nutshell, the provisions of amendment of pleading as provided under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC can be summarized and crystallized as exists today, is as under:- "Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code deals with amendment of pleadings. By Amendment Act 46 of 1999, this provision was deleted. It has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to pre­vent application for amendment being al­lowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the partly could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment to any stage. Now, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of the due diligence, such amend­ment could not have been sought earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous application which are filed to delay the trial. There is no illegality in the provision." 12. In the case of Raj Kumar Gurwara (Dead) through LRS. v. S.K. Sarwagi and Company Private Limited and another (2008) 14 SCC 364: ( AIR 2008 SC 2303 ) Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 12, 13 and 18 as held as under- "Para-12: - Jn order to consider whether the appellant plaintiff has made out case for amendment of his plaint, it is useful to refer Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which reads as under:- "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." The first part of the rule makes it abun­dantly clear that at any stage of the proceed­ings, parties are free to alter or amend their pleadings as may be necessary for the pur­pose of determining the real questions in con­troversy. However, this Rule is subject to pro­viso appended therein. The said Rule with proviso again substituted by Act 22 of 2002 with effect from 1-7-2002 makes it clear that after the commencement of the trial, no ap­plication for amendment shall be allowed. However, if the parties to the proceedings are able to satisfy the court that in spite of due diligence they could not raise the issue be­fore the commencement of trial and the court is satisfied with their explanation, amendment can be allowed even after commencement of the trial. "Para-13- To put it clear, Order 6 Rule 17 CPC confers jurisdiction on the court to allow either party to alter or amend his plead­ings at any stage of the proceedings on such terms as may be just. Such amendments seek­ing determination of the real question of the controversy between the parties shall be per­mitted to be made. Pre-trial amendments are to be allowed liberally than those which are sought to be made after the commencement of the trial. As rightly pointed out by the High Court in the former case, the opposite party is not prejudiced because he will have an opportunity of meeting the amendment sought to be made. In the latter case, namely, after the commencement of trial, particularly, after completion of the evidence, the ques­tion of prejudice to the opposite party may arise and in such event, it is incumbent on the part of the court to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the proviso. In the latter case, namely, after the commencement of trial, particularly, after completion of the evidence, the ques­tion of prejudice to the opposite party may arise and in such event, it is incumbent on the part of the court to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the proviso. "Para - 18- further it is relevant to point out that in the original suit, the plaintiff prayed for declaration of his exclusive right to do mining operations and to use and sell the suit schedule property and in the petition filed during the course of the arguments, he prayed for recovery of possession and damages from the second defendant. It is settled law that the grant of application for amendment be subject to certain conditions, namely, (i) when the nature of it is changed by permitting amendment: (ii) when the amendment would result in introducing new cause of action and intends to prejudice the other party; (iii) when allowing amendment application defeats the law of limitation. The plaintiff not only failed to satisfy the conditions prescribed in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 but even duly considered by the High Court and rightly set aside the order dated 10.03.2004 of the Additional Dis­trict Judge." 13. Now reverting to the facts of the present case, from the perusal of the amend­ment application annexed as Annexurc-3 to the writ petition, the reason given for mak­ing the amendment that inadvertently by mis­take, the facts regarding the box label in re­spect to the controversy involved in the present case were left from being mentioned in the written statement, so the said facts are necessary to be incorporated by way of amendment. 14. Admittedly, in the present case, the suit for perpetual injunction restraining infringe­ment of trade marks, copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts etc. was filed in the month of February, 2007 and 03.05.2007 was fixed for ex parte evidence and 14.05.2007 was fixed for ex parte hearing. On the said date, the revisionist appeared before the trial court and moved an application for recall of order for ex-parte hearing, accordingly, the same was recalled. Thereafter, the revision­ist filed his written statement on 21.10.2007 and the matter was fixed for argument on behalf of the plaintiff. The trial court has further observed that till now 37 dates have been fixed and the matter has been lingered, on one pretext or other. Thereafter, the revision­ist filed his written statement on 21.10.2007 and the matter was fixed for argument on behalf of the plaintiff. The trial court has further observed that till now 37 dates have been fixed and the matter has been lingered, on one pretext or other. Lastly on 09.11.2009, the revisionist moved an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17, CPC, the same was rejected by the trial court by order dated 03.03.2010. In the light of the above said fact, the applying principles as "provided under Order VI Rule 17 CPC after the Civil Procedure Code, Amendment (Amendment Act, 2002) unless, the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial and if the application is filed after the commencement of trial that it has to be shown that in spite of diligence such amendment could not have been sought earlier, otherwise the amendment application should not be al­lowed. 15. In the present case as the revisionist has not stated a single word, moreover nei­ther fulfilled the mandatory conditions nor established that due to diligence, the amend­ment which is sought by way of amendment application could not be sought earlier and keeping in view the facts stated above since now only the argument is to take place in the present case before the trial court and the re­visionist does not fulfill the mandatory con­ditions as mentioned in the proviso of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, accordingly, the applica­tion moved for amendment is rightly rejected by the court below. I do not find any illegal­ity or infirmity in the order under challenge in the instant case. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the present revision filed by the petitioner lacks merit. Hence the same is dismissed accordingly. Revision dismissed.