JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.: (Oral) - C.M.Nos.18786-87-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record Annexures P1 to P4. 2. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. 3. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly. Civil Revision No.4728 of 2011 4. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 4.5.2011, Annexure P5, passed by learned lower appellate Court vide which application filed by petitioners-appellants-defendants for amendment of written statement was dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned first appellate Court. 6. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit for recovery of Rs.5,22,784/- was filed by respondents-plaintiffs against the present petitioners on the ground that respondents-plaintiffs were agriculturist by profession and that present petitioners-defendants are commission agents and they used to deal in sale and purchase of potato crop and hence potato used to be sold by respondents-plaintiffs to petitioners defendants and though potatoes were stored by respondents-defendants in M/s Shakti Cold Storage and however, thereafter the same were sold by them without permission of the respondents-plaintiffs and price of the same was also not paid to respondents-plaintiffs. 7. The suit was contested by present petitioners-defendants by taking the plea that the entire amount was already paid and nothing is due. 8. Suit was decreed against present petitioners-defendants against which they filed an appeal. During pendency of appeal, the present application was filed for amendment of written statement by taking the plea that M/s Shakti Cold Storage is a necessary and proper party to the suit as well as by taking the another plea that sale and purchase of potatoes is covered under Section 2(a) and Section 38 read with Entry No.120 of the Schedule attached with the Punjab Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1961, (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act’) and that under Section 6 of the Act, no person can run the business of sale, purchase and storage of agricultural produce except under a license granted in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. However, at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants pressed only one amendment, i.e., M/s Shakti Cold Storage is a necessary and a proper party. 9. However, at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants pressed only one amendment, i.e., M/s Shakti Cold Storage is a necessary and a proper party. 9. It is further contended that application has been mainly declined by learned appellate Court on the plea that it was filed at a much belated stage. 10. There is no dispute that application is filed at a much belated stage, i.e., before learned first appellate Court and that too after about two years of filing the appeal. 11. It is pertinent to reproduce the amended provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 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.” 12. Law has been well settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another, [2009(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 540] : 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 763 that no application for amendment is to be allowed after commencement of trial,unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the parties could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. 13. In this case, petitioners-defendants failed to satisfy this Court as to why the objections could not be taken at appropriate stage before commencement of trial. 14. On merits as well, respondents-plaintiffs have not claimed any relief against M/s Shakti Cold Storage. The transaction has taken place between present petitioners-defendants and respondents-plaintiffs. He has only alleged that potatoes were stored by petitioners-defendants in said cold store. Hence, it cannot be said that M/s Shakti Cold Storage is a necessary party for deciding the real controversy in dispute. 15. The transaction has taken place between present petitioners-defendants and respondents-plaintiffs. He has only alleged that potatoes were stored by petitioners-defendants in said cold store. Hence, it cannot be said that M/s Shakti Cold Storage is a necessary party for deciding the real controversy in dispute. 15. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned appellate Court in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. 16. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(3) All India Land Laws Reporter 334 : 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” 17. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. ----------0BSK0----------