JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of order dated 5.11.2011 (Annex.-4) passed in Civil Original Suit No. 107/2008 by the Addl. District Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar, by which, application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17, read with Section 151 Cr.P.C. was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that amendment was sought by the petitioner-plaintiff in the suit under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. to incorporate the facts relating to agreement dated 22.4.2008 as well as collusive decree obtained by respondent No. 9 in collusion with respondents to 1 to 8 and the said decree is ineffective to the rights of the petitioner. The petitioner prayed that Para II-A may be incorporated in his suit after Para 11. 3. Respondents No. 4 and 5 filed counter to the application filed by the petitioner and submitted that they have no objection. Learned trial Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties dismissed the application holding that no such amendment can be allowed because petitioner himself filed application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. in the earlier suit which is alleged to be decreed in collusion of respondents No. 1 to 8 and respondent No. 9 but no application for incorporating the said fact is filed within three years, therefore, at this stage, amendment cannot be allowed; but, this ground is totally unwarranted because the petitioner is not seeking amendment in the prayer clause, therefore, the impugned order may be quashed. 4. In support of his argument learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards judgment reported in 2011 WLC (Raj.) UC 498, rendered in the case of Ratan Kumari v. Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur City & Ors. by the co-ordinate Bench at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the order impugned. 6. District Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur City & Ors. by the co-ordinate Bench at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the order impugned. 6. It emerges from perusal of the order that alleged decree obtained by the respondent No. 9 in collusion with respondents No. 1 to 8 was passed on 4.10.2008, in which, the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10, C.P.C. and, now, the petitioner wants to add a ground that decree was collusive decree, that too, after three years, therefore, the trial Court rejected the application on the ground that if such amendment will be allowed then nature of the suit will be changed. 7. In my opinion, the reasons given by the trial Court for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. does not require any interference because it is based upon sound appreciation and application of mind; more so, the fact of collusive decree was well within the knowledge of the petitioner but he did not challenge the same for three years and, now, he is seeking to incorporate the said fact in the suit. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is based upon altogether different facts, therefore, it is not applicable upon the facts of the present case. In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere in the order impugned.Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******