JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 23.2.2012 (Annex.5) passed by Civil Judge (JD), Balotra whereby the application for amendment in written statement filed by the petitioner was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent for eviction, an application was filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the written statement on the ground that running of the flour-mill came within the definition of manufacturing process, therefore, the notice for termination of tenancy was required to be of at least six months time and for that purpose, application may be allowed and paragraph 5 (A) may be permitted to be added in the written statement so as to raise the question of validity of notice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trial Court rejected the application for amendment in very casual manner without considering the important aspect of the matter with regard to ground of validity of notice under Section 105 and 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, therefore, the order impugned may be quashed and amendment application may be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that final arguments have already been heard in the matter and only to delay the trial, the application of amendment in the written statement has been filed, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. It is also pleaded that the petitioner is claiming amendment for the fact which was very much in his knowledge at the time of filing written statement, therefore, in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, it is domain of the Court to refuse such amendment, therefore, there is no illegality in the order impugned. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and proviso to rule which reads as under:- "O.VI R.17. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and proviso to rule which reads as under:- "O.VI R.17. 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 in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." 6. It is admitted position of the case that suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent after giving notice under Section 105 and 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and written statement was filed by the petitioner after receiving notice but it is very strange that at the time of final stage, an application for amendment in the written statement has been filed for incorporating ground with regard to validity of notice. In my opinion, the fact which was well within the knowledge of defendant petitioner was to be raised at the time of filing written statement but it has not been raised, therefore, in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed for amendment in the written statement. 7. In view of above, it cannot be said that any illegality or error has been committed by the trial Court in rejected the application filed by the petitioner for amendment in the written statement. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******