JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Plaintiff Paal Kaur by filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has impugned order dated 25.1.2010, Annexure P/4 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana thereby dismissing application Annexure P/2 moved by plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of plaint. 2. Plaintiff-petitioner vide plaint Annexure P/1 has filed suit inter alia seeking relief of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 26.2.1983 qua plot no. 22 measuring 260 square yards, and qua plot no. 21 on the basis of receipts, total area of both the plots being 400 square yards. 3. In amendment application Annexure P/2, the plaintiff alleged that area of both plots No. 21 and 22 is 626 square yards and it was inadvertently mentioned as 400 square yards. Consequently, area of the plots was sought to be amended from 400 square yards to 626 square yards at all places in the plaint. 4. Defendants by filing reply Annexure P/3 resisted the application and controverted the averments of the plaintiff. 5. Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/4 dismissed the application of plaintiff for amendment of plaint. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed this revision petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 7. Counsel for the petitioner contended that even defendants in their written statement Annexure P/6 have admitted that total area of both plots is 626 square yards and plaintiff is in possession thereof and thus, area of the plots as 400 square yards was inadvertently mentioned in the plaint and therefore, proposed amendment of plaint should be allowed. 8. On the other hand, counsel for defendants/respondents contended that proposed amendment of plaint cannot be allowed after commencement of trial. It was also contended that area agreed to be sold was 400 square yards as mentioned in the written statement and the plaintiff has taken unauthorized possession of the remaining area measuring 226 square yards. 9. I have carefully considered the aforesaid rival contentions. 10. The defendants in their written statement Annexure P/6 specifically pleaded that total area of the two plots is 626 square yards. In spite thereof, the plaintiff did not seek amendment of plaint regarding area of the plots at that stage. 9. I have carefully considered the aforesaid rival contentions. 10. The defendants in their written statement Annexure P/6 specifically pleaded that total area of the two plots is 626 square yards. In spite thereof, the plaintiff did not seek amendment of plaint regarding area of the plots at that stage. If there had been only inadvertent error in mentioning area of the plots in the original plaint, the plaintiff would have sought amendment of plaint to this effect immediately after filing of written statement dated 14.12.2006 mentioning the total area of the plots being 626 square yards. However, no such amendment of plaint was sought at that stage. On the contrary, issues were framed in the suit and part evidence of the plaintiff was also recorded and it was thereafter that the plaintiff moved application Annexure P/2 dated 6.102009 for amendment of plaint. The said application was filed almost three years after the defendants had filed their written statement Annexure P/6 mentioning total area of the two plots being 626 square yards. In these circumstances, amendment of plaint has been rightly declined by the trial court. 11. Here it may be mentioned that there is alleged written agreement Annexure P/5 regarding plot no. 22 measuring 262 square yards, but there is no agreement, receipt or other document mentioning area of plot no. 21 allegedly agreed to be sold to the plaintiff. 12. In addition to the aforesaid, in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, proposed amendment of plaint cannot be allowed having been sought after commencement of trial. The aforesaid legal provision stipulates that amendment of pleadings shall not be allowed after commencement of trial unless the party seeking amendment, inspite of due diligence, could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the plaintiff could not seek proposed amendment of plaint before commencement of trial even if the plaintiff had exercised due diligence. On the contrary, in view of written statement mentioning total area of the two plots to be 626 square yards, the plaintiff after exercise of due diligence could have sought amendment of plaint before the commencement of trial. Consequently, proposed amendment of plaint cannot be allowed in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. Consequently, proposed amendment of plaint cannot be allowed in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error. Consequently, there is no ground to interfere with the same in exercise of supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. 14. Nothing observed hereinbefore shall have any bearing on the merits of the suit. 15. Cost amount imposed on the petitioner has not yet been deposited. If the same is not deposited within three weeks from today, the case shall be listed for this purpose. ---------0.B.S.0------------