Shashi Kant Gupta, J.;- 1. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 13.7.2011 whereby the amendment application by means of which amendment sought in the written statement has been rejected by the court below. 2. A suit for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the respondent which was registered as SCC Suit No. 2 of 2010 wherein, interalia, it was mentioned that an agreement was executed between the parties for a period between 1.9.2008 and 31.7.2009 under which the petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 50,000/- per month as rent for the disputed premises. 3. Since the tenancy was for a fixed term, it came to an end by 31.7.2009 but despite that, the petitioner did not vacate the disputed premises. Consequently, after service of notice, the present SCC Suit No. 2 of 2010 was filed. 4. The petitioner-tenant filed a written statement wherein, inter alia, in paragraph 14, it was stated as follows; 14. ;g fd fnukad 01-09-08 ls 31-07-2009 rd vof/k dk tks fdjk;kukek iathd`r gqvk Fkk mlesa vafdr 'krsZa mlh vof/k ds fy, ekU; Fkh vkSj oknh fdjk;snkjh dh vof/k O;rhr gksus ds ckn] oknh us izfroknhx.k dh fdjk;snkjh dh vof/k ekg nj ekg ds fdjk;s ds fglkc ls LosPNk ls tkjh j[khA oknh dk ;g dguk fd iathd`r fdjk;sukes dh 'krsZ vkt Hkh ykxw gS] xyr gSA 5. It appears that an application was filed under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC for amendment in paragraph 14 of the written statement and further sought to add a new paragraph as 14 A, which read as follows; @ Hindi @ 6. The said application for amendment of the written statement was dismissed by the court below by order dated 13.7.2011. Hence the present writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 8. It is not disputed that the trial of the suit had commenced and the witnesses have already been examined and cross-examined. It appears from perusal of the record that the petitioners want to wriggle out from his own admission. A perusal of the amendment application reveals that according to the petitioner, after expiry of the fixed term of tenancy on 31.7.2009, one room on the terrace was vacated by the petitioner, as such, the rent was, inter alia, reduced from Rs. 50,000/- per month to Rs. A perusal of the amendment application reveals that according to the petitioner, after expiry of the fixed term of tenancy on 31.7.2009, one room on the terrace was vacated by the petitioner, as such, the rent was, inter alia, reduced from Rs. 50,000/- per month to Rs. 22,000/- per month and the said fact was inadvertently not incorporated in the written statement. This plea, however, does not appeal to me. It appears that just to delay the disposal of the suit, the said amendment is being sought by the petitioner in the written statement after the close of evidence. 9. In Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another Vs. Ladha Ram and Co., (1977) 1 SCR 728 it has been held by the Apex Court that an inconsistent plea, which would displace the plaintiff completely from the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement, cannot be allowed. Moreover, amended Rule 17, order VI CPC inter alia provides that no amendment application shall be allowed after the trial has been commenced instead the parties should have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The bare perusal of the record does not show that any due diligence was exercised by the petitioner in the matter, as such, the court below was fully justified in rejecting the amendment application. 10. The court below has assigned cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the order impugned in the writ petition. 11. I do not see any reason to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. It is made clear that the observation made in this order shall not in any way cause prejudice or influence the court below while deciding the suit.