Judgment Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the defendant and is directed against the Order dated April 5, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Alipore in Title Suit No.439 of 2004 thereby allowing an application for amendment of the plaint. 2. The plaintiff / opposite party herein instituted a suit being Title Suit No.439 of 2004 for declaration, injunction and other reliefs against the defendant / petitioner herein before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Alipore. The defendant is contesting the said suit denying the allegations made in the plaint. Issues had been framed and thereafter, the suit was fixed for peremptory hearing. At that stage, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint and that application was allowed on contests without costs by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. 3. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. 4. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the said application for amendment of the plaint was filed at the stage of trial of the suit. As per application for amendment appearing as Annexure ‘P-3’ at page no.63, the plaintiff has wanted to incorporate several facts mentioned in the schedule for amendment. On perusal of the schedule for amendment, I find that by the proposed paragraph no.9A, the plaintiff has wanted to incorporate the fact of requisition that had taken place long time back and Gazette Notification was held in the Gazette dated February 17, 1975 and December 8, 1983. So, these are not at all the facts that occurred subsequent to the filing of the suit. Admittedly, the suit having been filed in the year 2004 is governed by the Act No.22 of 2002 effective from July 1, 2002 and as such, so far as amendment of the plaint is concerned, the Court is to look into the amended provision of Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. Admittedly, the written statement was filed on January 6, 2009, issues were framed on January 28, 2009 and the trial of the suit has commenced and the suit has been fixed for peremptory hearing. 5. 5. On perusal of the plaint, it is apparent that paragraph no.9A as referred to in the schedule of the amendment is in substance, the same fact which has been stated in paragraph no.8 of the plaint, copy of which has been annexed as ‘P-1’ to the application and certain developments have been made thereon certainly in view of the averments made in the written statement. So, in fact, the proposed paragraph no.9A is nothing but reiteration of paragraph no.8 of the plaint. 6. As regards, the amendment as sought for in paragraph no.s VII & VIII, such averments have been prepared on getting the statements made in paragraph no.13 of the written statement and the facts as stated in paragraph no.s VII & VIII are, in substance, in the nature of denial of the statement made in the written statement. So, such amendment, on getting the copy of the written statement long time back cannot be allowed at the belated stage in the post trial period. 7. So far as amendment as sought for in paragraph no.s II to VI are concerned, they are not the matters subsequent to the filing of the suit; but, the matters relating to change of ward no. of the suit property, Gazette Notification of 1996, Memorandum of the Deputy Secretary dated May 22, 1997 and derequisition of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, which appears to have been happened long time back. Therefore, none of them are related to any fact subsequent to the filing of the suit but prior to the institution of the suit. Accordingly, unless due explanation is given satisfactorily as to proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C., it is difficult to allow the application for amendment. 8. Above all, trial has already commenced and when the trial has commenced, the plaintiff is required to satisfy the Court that he has overcome the mischief of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. 9. Mr. Ayan Banerjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner has referred to the decision of Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey & anr. v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & ors. reported in (2006) 12 SCC 1 and thus, he has submitted that the trial is deemed to have commenced when the issues are settled and the case is set down for recording of evidence. Mr. Ayan Banerjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner has referred to the decision of Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey & anr. v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & ors. reported in (2006) 12 SCC 1 and thus, he has submitted that the trial is deemed to have commenced when the issues are settled and the case is set down for recording of evidence. The plaintiff is required to prove that despite due diligence the said matter could not be raised by the plaintiff at the pre-trial stage. In the instant case, since the trial has already been started as recorded above, the plaintiff is required to show that in spite of due diligence, he could not pray for amendment of the plaint at the pre-trial stage. This decision is very much applicable in the instant situation and on perusal of the reasons for amendment as stated in the application for amendment, I find that the plaintiff has not, in fact, stated any reasons to the effect that in spite of due diligence, he could not pray for amendment of the plaint at the pre-trial stage. A simple contention is that due to non-advertence, some material allegations have not been included in the plaint and the said is required to be included by way of amendment of the plaint for the purpose of effective and final adjudication. Such statement does not, at all, come to overcome the conditions laid down in the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. 10. Mr. Banerjee has also referred to the decisi on of RajkumarGurawara (Dead) Thr. L.Rs. v. M/s. S.K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & anr. reported in 2008 AIR SCW 4007 and thus, he has submitted that amendment sought for at the stage of argument without satisfying the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. cannot be allowed. This decision is also applicable in the instant situation. 11. Mr. L.Rs. v. M/s. S.K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & anr. reported in 2008 AIR SCW 4007 and thus, he has submitted that amendment sought for at the stage of argument without satisfying the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. cannot be allowed. This decision is also applicable in the instant situation. 11. Mr. Suresh Chandra Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party has referred to the decisions of Ramesh Kumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2012) 2 Supreme 593 and Doli Karmakar v. Ranjan Kumar Sadhukhan reported in 2012(3) CHN (Cal) 350 and, thus, he has submitted that these two decisions govern the general principles relating to amendment of pleadings and so, the Court should take a liberal approach in the matter of amendment and if there is no prejudice to the other side, amendment should be allowed. These two decisions, I hold, are purely on general proposition relating to amendment and they do not cover the situation which we are now dealing with, that is, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. Therefore, I am of the view that these two decisions will not be applicable in the instant situation. 12. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the proposed amendment comes within the mischief of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. and as such, the said amendment cannot be allowed at all. But, the learned Trial Judge has granted amendment by dealing with the general proposition as to amendment that if the amendment is allowed, it will not cause the change of the nature and character of the suit in any shape or design. This is not enough in consideration of the situation in which the amendment was sought for. The learned Trial Judge has, therefore, committed illegality and material irregularity in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot be supported. 13. This application succeeds and is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The application for amendment of the plaint stands rejected. 14. The learned Trial Judge shall proceed with the suit from that stage. 15. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.