JUDGMENT 1. By consent, the Civil Revision petitions are taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 2. This Revision Petition is filed against the orders dated 30.11.2011 in I.A. No.380 of 2010 in O.S. No.76 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Mannargudi, whereby and whereunder, the Petition filed under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. for amending the Plaint came to be dismissed. 3. The Petitioner is the Plaintiff, who filed a Suit in O.S. No.76 of 2009 before the District Munsif Court, Mannargudi, for the relief of declaration. In the said Sit, both side witnesses were examined and evidence is closed and the Suit was posted for arguments. While, so the Petitioner has come forward with an Interlocutory Application in I.A. No.380 of 2010 under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C., praying for amendment of the Plaint. According to the Petitioner, the suit property was self-acquired property of one Rasu Kandiyar who executed a registered Will dated 2.3.2000 in favour of the petitioner and after the death of executor of the Will on 4.1.2003, the Petitioner ha become the absolute owner of the suit property. However, since the Respondent/Defendant denied the right and title of the Petitioner, he came forward with the Suit for declaration of title over the suit property. After completion of the evidence on both side and when the Suit was posted for arguments, the Petitioner has come forward with an Interlocutory Application, praying for amendment of the Plaint. According to the petitioner, since possession of the suit property was not with him, it becomes necessary for him to seek for amendment of the Plaint for recovery of the possession. 4. Before the Court below, the Respondent resisted the Application, stating that the amendment cannot be allowed after commencement of the trial and the claim for recovery of possession is barred by limitation and further it would alter the nature and character of the Suit and therefore, amendment cannot be allowed. 5. The Court below, having considered the entire facts and circumstances and rival contentions of both parties, came to conclusion that the amendment cannot be allowed since the Petitioner/Plaintiff has not come forward with such amendment before the commencement of trial and if it is allowed, it would bring a new case and cause prejudice to the rights of the Respondent/Defendant. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. B. Singaravelu, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would contend that the Petitioner has only sought for amendment of inclusion of the prayer in the Suit regarding the recovery of possession to avoid multiplicity of proceedings if ultimately Suit is decreed in favour of the Petitioner/ Plaintiff and that the amendment if allowed would not change cause of action and the nature of the Suit and further no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent since he claimed that the possession with him. Therefore, the learned Counsel would contend that without considering these aspects, the Trial Court has mechanically rejected the Application and hence, he seeks interference of this Court. 7. The primary aim of the Courts is to try the cases on merits and ensure that the rule of justice prevails. For this the need is for the true facts of the case to be placed before the Courts so that the Courts have access to all the relevant information in coming to their decisions. Therefore, at times it is required to permit the parties to amend their Plaints. No doubt true that Rule 17 of Order 6, C.P.C. confers power on the Court to amend the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. However, the Proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6, the party has to necessarily satisfy the Court that he could not have discovered that ground which was pleaded by amendment, in spite of due diligence. 8. It is to be noted that the Petitioner/Plaintiff has come forward with the Interlocutory Application seeking for amendment after commencement of trial. Admittedly, the Petitioner has not made out a case that in spite of his due diligence, he could not have filed the Amendment Application before commencement of trial. It is to be noted Petitioner/Plaintiff has categorically stated in para 3 of the Plaint that after the death of Rasi Kandiyar on 4.1.2003, the so-called will had come into effect and she had taken the suit property in her possession and enjoying the same. Therefore, when the suit property was claimed to be in possession of the Petitioner, she could not seek for amendment of Plaint as regards ‘recovery of possession’ which as rightly held by the Trial Court it would certainly cause prejudice to the Respondent/Defendant. However, it is now well settled that no amendment can be allowed after commencement of trial. Therefore, when the suit property was claimed to be in possession of the Petitioner, she could not seek for amendment of Plaint as regards ‘recovery of possession’ which as rightly held by the Trial Court it would certainly cause prejudice to the Respondent/Defendant. However, it is now well settled that no amendment can be allowed after commencement of trial. In recent decision J. Samuel and others v. Guttu Mahesh and others, 2012 (2) SCC 300 , after enunciating all relevant decisions in the field and held in para 23 as under: “23. Though the Counsel for the Appellants have cited many decisions, on perusal, we are of the view that some of those cases have been decided prior to the insertion of Order 6, Rule 17, with Proviso or on the peculiar facts of that case. This Court, in various decisions, upheld the power the power that in deserving cases, the Court can allow delayed amendment by compensating the other side by awarding costs. The entire object of the amendment to Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. as introduced in 2002 is to stall filing of Application for amending a pleading subsequent to the commencement of trial, to avoid surprises and that the parties had sufficient knowledge of other’s case. it also helps checking the delays in filing the Applications.” 9. Having regard to the above categoric decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the ratio laid down therein, it is to be started that prior to insertion of Proviso clause to order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. , it was permissible for the Court to allow belated amendment by compensating the other side by awarding costs. But, pursuant to the insertion of the Proviso, 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. In view of the insertion of the Proviso, the entire object of the amendment introduced in 2002 in CPC is to stall filing of Application for amending the pleading subsequent to commencement of trial to avoid surprise and that the parties had sufficient knowledge of other’s case. 10. In view of the insertion of the Proviso, the entire object of the amendment introduced in 2002 in CPC is to stall filing of Application for amending the pleading subsequent to commencement of trial to avoid surprise and that the parties had sufficient knowledge of other’s case. 10. In the given situation, the attempt made by the Petitioner seeking for amendment of the Plaint for recovery of possession at a belated stage that too after commencement of trial cannot be allowed. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly found that there is no convincing reasons to allow such an amendment at the belated stage and dismissed the Application of the Petitioner, which, in my considered opinion, would in no way call for interference of this Court by exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.