JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that order dated 16.11.2009, Annex.-3, passed by Addl. District Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand in Civil Misc. Case No.108/2005, whereby, application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 6, Rule 17 , read with Section 151, C.P.C. may be ordered to be allowed with cost and trial Court may be directed to proceed further in the matter after taking on record amendment made in the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 , C.P.C. and try the2 suit strictly in accordance with law. 2. As per facts of the case, in the suit pending in the Court of Addl. District Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand, an application was made by the petitioner-defendant under Order 6, Rule 17 , read with Section 151, C.P.C., in which, it is prayed that certain amendment may be allowed in the written-statement filed by him but learned trial Court after hearing the parties rejected the application filed by the petitioner vide order impugned dated 16.11.2009. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that amendment which is sought in the application is necessary for adjudication of the suit and for the purpose of determining the real question which is in controversy in between the parties, learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 6, Rule 17 , C.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner further prayed that at any stage of the proceedings such application can be allowed for amendment in the written-statement or in the suit; but, on wrong premises, learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner which is totally erroneous. Learned counsel for the petitioner further prayed that grounds raised in the amendment application are quite just, relevant and, so also, legal in nature, therefore, for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy, the amendment required to be allowed but learned trial Court rejected the application without considering the spirit of Order 6, Rule 17 , C.P.C., therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that only to delay the trial the said application under Order 6, Rule 17 , C.P.C. was filed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that only to delay the trial the said application under Order 6, Rule 17 , C.P.C. was filed. It is also brought to the notice that two other writ petitions were also filed by the petitioner being S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.5510 and 5511 of 2009, both decided on 17.11.2009, in which, direction was issued to conclude the trial of the suit in question within six months but, only to delay the trial of the suit, application under Order 6, Rule 17 , C.P.C. was filed knowing well that most of the amendment sought for is already on record, therefore, the order which is impugned in this writ petition is perfectly in accordance with law. 5. With regard to amendment on the basis of objection, it has rightly been observed by the trial Court that such permission cannot be granted at this stage with regard to4 judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mewar Marbles v. Stated of Rajasthan, decided on 24.11.2006 , it is submitted that said fact was well within the knowledge of the petitioner-defendant but in the earlier application for amendment no such plea was taken, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner with regard to claiming amendment based upon objection under Section 11, C.P.C. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order. 7. In my opinion, learned trial Court passed detailed order and considered all the grounds taken by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 , C.P.C. and gave finding that all the amendments sought in the application are already on record. Learned trial Court decided the application while observing page and para number to indicate that most of the amendments sought are already on record. Learned trial Court decided the application while observing page and para number to indicate that most of the amendments sought are already on record. Further, for the ground with regard to objection under Section 11, C.P.C. it is observed by the trial Court that in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2002 (4) Civil L.J. 93, Ratan Singh and Others v. Ram Prasad and Others , and, 5 AIR 1994 Allahabad 99, Sant Ram Agrawal v. Civil Judge, Mohanlal Ganj and Others , no such permission can be given for introducing amendment which was already in the knowledge of the applicant and he has not chosen to incorporate those grounds in the earlier application of amendment. 8. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, learned trial Court has not acted illegally. More so, elaborate order has been passed by the trial Court while dealing scrupulously all the grounds raised for incorporation of amendment. With regard to judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that application under Order 6, Rule 17 , C.P.C. for amendment can be filed at any stage; but, in this case, the grounds upon which the application has been filed for seeking amendment and amendment with regard to objection under Section 11, C.P.C. it is obvious that in the writ petition of Mewar Marbles, decided earlier, the parties were the same, therefore, the question of res judicata cannot be made applicable to the present case. Further, if any judgment is made by the High Court, then, it can be considered at the time of final arguments. Therefore, the petitioner will be at liberty to bring to the6 notice of the trial Court that judgment in the case of Mewar Marbles is applicable to the present case. 9. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed with aforesaid observation.Petition dismissed. *******