JUDGMENT : This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 05/08/2010 passed by Eighth Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Rewa, in Civil Appeal No. 67A/2009; whereby, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' for short) filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in the suit plaint has been rejected. The suit at the instance of the petitioner was filed in the year 2001 for declaration that the sale deed 02091998 in respect of land bearing khasra No. 369/1 area 2.31 acres, 370/1 area 3.02 acres, and 371/1 area 0.18 acre, situated at village Quette, tahsil Sirmour, district Rewa, be declared null and void and for permanent injunction. The said civil suit vide judgment and decree dated 26042008 was dismissed, against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal, during pendency whereof the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC W.P. No.13615.10 seeking leave of the Court to incorporate certain details regarding the suit property by implanting new 'Nazri Naksha'. Apparently, the boundaries shown in the proposed 'Nazri Naksha' and location of the suit land did not tally with the original Nazri Naksha filed by the petitioner along with the suit plaint. The first appellate Court, therefore, recording a finding that the amendment, if allowed, would tantamount to filling in the gaps, that no explanation has been tendered as to why the said amendment was not before the trial Court, rejected the application. On a fare perusal of the amendment sought for by the petitioner and the reason assigned by the first appellate Court while rejecting the same does not warrant an interference in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for the reason that, the facts which the petitioner proposed to bring on record were in existence at the time when the suit was instituted. The petitioner with the given facts which he has pleaded in the plaint, led his evidence and allowed the Court to deliver the judgment, he cannot in absence of any cogent reasons be allowed to turn around and propose an amendment to knock down the very basis of the entire judgment and W.P. No.13615.10 decree, as right has accrued in favour of the respondents/defendants. True it is that an amendment can be allowed even at the appellate stage but the said right cannot be exercised unless and until an applicant shows that despite of due diligence the facts were not pleaded or not available with him. In the case at hand no such circumstances since have been on fore as would lead us to formulate an opinion that despite of due diligence shown by the petitioner the facts could not be pleaded. In the result the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, no costs.