JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Defendants no.3 to 7 have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 26.02.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, thereby dismissing application of petitioners for amendment of written statement. 2. Respondents no.1 to 6/plaintiffs filed suit against proforma respondents no. 7 and 8 (defendants no.1 and 2) and against petitioners (defendants no.3 to 7) for partition of House No. 62 and Shop No. 75. Defendants, in their written statement, pleaded that plaintiffs have no right in the aforesaid suit properties. 3. By way of amendment, defendants no.3 to 7 want to raise additional preliminary objections no.9 and 10 to the effect that if the Court finds the two suit properties to be joint properties of the parties, in that event, the suit is bad for partial partition as property no. 45, which is admittedly joint property of the parties, has not been included in the suit and that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties because Sri Ram, Mohan Lal, Khushi Ram, Baldev Sahai and Bhagwan Dass – owners of property no. 45 are also necessary party to the suit. The aforesaid amendment application has been dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order dated 26.02.2011, which is under challenge in this revision petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioners prays for another adjournment to address arguments, for which no ground or justification is made out. No written request for adjournment has either been made. Following order was passed on the preceding date of hearing :- “Again there is written request for adjournment on behalf of counsel for the petitioner being out of station for some personal work. No justification for adjournment is made out because in this case filed as urgent one, large number of adjournments have been sought by counsel for the petitioners for preliminary hearing. It is 11th or 12th date for preliminary hearing. In the interest of justice, one last and final opportunity is granted. Adjourned to 02.02.2012. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted under any circumstances.” 5. In view thereof, request for further adjournment is declined. Conduct of the counsel for the petitioners in making request for further adjournment is strongly deprecated in view of observations made in the order of the preceding date. 6. Adjourned to 02.02.2012. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted under any circumstances.” 5. In view thereof, request for further adjournment is declined. Conduct of the counsel for the petitioners in making request for further adjournment is strongly deprecated in view of observations made in the order of the preceding date. 6. In the absence of any assistance from counsel for the petitioners, I have perused the case file and I am proceeding to decide the instant revision petition. 7. Application for amendment of written statement was filed at the stage of rebuttal evidence and final arguments after both parties had led their evidence. In view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no such amendment of pleading could be allowed after commencement of trial unless the party seeking amendment could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial in spite of due diligence. In the instant case, it cannot be said that petitioners could not have pleaded the facts, now sought to be pleaded by amendment, before commencement of trial in spite of due diligence. The suit is pending for almost nine years. Even the impugned order was passed almost one year ago. The revision petition was filed more than ten months ago. Counsel for the petitioners has been seeking adjournments only in the case. Counsel for the petitioners is not even aware if the suit, out of which this revision petition has arisen, is still pending or has been finally disposed of. 8. It is significant to notice that the proposed amendment is frivolous and irrelevant. According to the proposed amendment, property no.45, which is not included in the suit, is owned by some other persons i.e. Sri Ram etc. Consequently, the said property could not be included in the present suit for partition. Consequently, the instant suit cannot be said to be bad for partial partition nor it can be said bad for non-joinder of necessary parties because Sri Ram etc., who are allegedly owners of property no.45, are not necessary party to the instant suit because property no.45 is not subject matter of the instant suit. It is not the case of the petitioners, even by way of proposed amendment, that Sri Ram etc. have any interest in the suit properties bearing Nos.62 and 75. 9. It is not the case of the petitioners, even by way of proposed amendment, that Sri Ram etc. have any interest in the suit properties bearing Nos.62 and 75. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, I have no hesitation in concluding that application for amendment of written statement filed by the petitioners was frivolous and it was filed with mala fide intention to delay the disposal of the partition suit and consequently, the instant revision petition is also not only meritless, but is also frivolous, and therefore, deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost to curb such frivolous litigation. Impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. On the contrary, the impugned order is fully justified. 10. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the petitioners with the Registry of this Court within one month from today, failing which the case shall be listed for this purpose. ----------------