JUDGMENT : Mahesh Bhagwati, J. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 20th October, 2009, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rajgarh allowed the application of the respondents defendant seeking amendment in the written statement of defence. 2. Adumbrated in brief the facts of the case are that a civil suit for permanent injunction in mandatory form came to be filed by the petitioner plaintiff against the respondents-defendants. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff Laxmi Narayan and defendant Kalyan Sahay expired and their legal representatives were taken on record accordingly. After conclusion of trial of the suit the same was decreed and mandatory injunction was issued in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner and against the defendants vide judgment dated 14.2.2002. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the respondents-defendants preferred an appeal and the appellate court vide order dated 25.4.2007 set-aside the judgment and decree dated 14.2.2002 and remitted the matter to the learned trial court after framing an additional issue with the following directions: (a) That the learned trial court shall afford an opportunity to the parties to lead the evidence in respect of additional issue (b) After recording the aforesaid evidence, the learned trial court after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties and considering each issue, render judgment afresh. 3. The respondents-defendants, during the pendency of the said suit, filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 on 23rd September, 2008 seeking an amendment in the written statement, which was replied by the plaintiff-petitioner. The learned trial court allowed the amendment application with the cost of Rs. 1000/- and permitted the respondents to file the amended written statement of defence. The petitioner plaintiff has challenged this order. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner plaintiff canvassed that both the parties had already led the evidence and the suit was finally decided and decreed in his favour, but the matter was remitted by the appellate court with the direction to the trial court to record the evidence of both the parties on additional issue and considering each issue, pass a judgment afresh. The respondents sought amendment in the written statement of defence, which has been allowed by the trial court observing that the appellate court had directed to consider all the issues again and pass the fresh judgment, which is tantamount to a de-novo trial. Learned counsel canvassed that the said interpretation of the appellate order given by the learned trial court is erroneous and not in accordance with the law. Learned counsel further took me through the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code and contended that after commencement of the trial, the amendment is not permissible under the proviso of Rule 17. The learned trial court arbitrarily allowed the application sans assigning any cogent reason and totally misunderstood the judgment of the appellate court. Hence, the impugned order being contrary to law and the direction of the first appellate court, deserves to be set-aside. 6. E Converso, the learned counsel for the respondents-defendants defended the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper. He further contended that the amendment can be allowed at any stage of the trial of the suit under Rule 17 Order 6 Civil Procedure Code. Thus, the learned trial court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction and the impugned order is not required to be interfered with. 7. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material on record and the provisions of Rule 17 Order 6 Civil Procedure Code, it is noticed that the leanred Additional District Judge, Rajgarh in his appellate jurisdiction framed an additional issue and remitted the matter to the trial court with the aforesaid directions. Learned trial court allowed the application of defendant-respondents filed under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code seeking an amendment in the written statement, but the Rule 17 Order 6 Civil Procedure Code contemplates thus: "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 inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." 8. It is tangibly provided under Rule 17 that the application for amendment shall not be allowed after the trial commenced unless the Court came to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 9. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, it is found that the trial of the suit had already completed by the learned trial court and the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner plaintiff and against the respondents-defendant. The respondents-defendant preferred an appeal and the appellate court while deciding the same, framed an additional issue and remitted the matter to the trial court to record the evidence of both the parties in respect of additional issue and thereafter having afforded an opportunity of being heard to both the parties and considered each issue separately, decide the suit afresh. This direction candidly suggests that the trial court was to record the evidence of both the parties in respect of additional issue only and not on other issues, which were framed by the court based on the pleadings of the parties in the beginning. The learned trial court is found to have misunderstood the order of remand and his observation that the remittance of the matter by the appellate court to the trial court, was tantamount to de-novo trial, is nothing but the misinterpretation by the learned trial court and that is not in accordance with the settled principles of law. When there is a categorical direction in unequivocal terms that the learned trial court shall record the evidence led by both the parties merely on additional issue and thereafter considering each issue, shall give a fresh decision after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties pass judgment afresh clearly suggests that the appellate court did not ask the learned trial court to conduct the de-novo trial. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, when we examine the impugned order dated 20.10.2009, we find that the trial had already completed before the learned trial court and from no stretch of imagination, the amendment was required to be permitted. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, when we examine the impugned order dated 20.10.2009, we find that the trial had already completed before the learned trial court and from no stretch of imagination, the amendment was required to be permitted. There was no occasion for the defendant to seek an amendment in the written statement nor the learned trial court had a right to allow the application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code seeking amendment. The impugned order is found to be arbitrary and capricious. It is found to have been passed sans assigning any cogent reason and to my firm view, the order assailed deserves to be set-aside. 10. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 20.10.2009 stands set-aside. 11. Learned trial court is directed to proceed with the trial of the suit in accordance with the law and as directed by the appellate court vide order dated 25.4.2007.