Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The defendant-petitioner, Ramesh Chand Sharma, has challenged the order dated 11.1.2013 filed by the Additional District Judge No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the learned Jude has rejected his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, for permitting certain amendment in the written-statement filed by him. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in April 2009 the plaintiff-respondent, Banshidhar Sharma, filed a civil suit against the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner filed his written-statement wherein in para 13 he has typed the words ^^jlwe c<+k p<+k dj** (valuation of the property is too high), instead of the words ^^jlwe c<+k p<+k dj** (lesser valuation of the property). Since the valuation of the property would determine the court-fees to be paid by the plaintiff-respondent, and since the petitioner claimed that he had discovered this typographical error much later, he filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. However, by order dated 11.1.2013 the learned Judge has dismissed his application. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Arvind Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently raised the contention that the application had been filed for correcting a typographical mistake. Moreover as the court-fees to be submitted by the plaintiff-respondent would depend on the valuation of the property, and as such payment of court-fees would have an impact on the maintainability of the civil suit, the amendment proposed by him should have been allowed. Moreover, such an amendment would not adversely affect the interest of the plaintiff-respondent. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied on the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami & others vs. Kiran Appaso Swami & others ( (2007) 5 SCC 602 ). Lastly, he has contended that even if it is held that the application was filed after an inordinate delay, the plaintiff-respondent can be compensated by imposition of cost. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel relied on the case of B.K.N. Pillai vs. P. Pillai & another ( AIR 2000 SC 614 ). 4. Heard the learned counsel, perused the impugned order and considered the case law cited at the Bar. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel relied on the case of B.K.N. Pillai vs. P. Pillai & another ( AIR 2000 SC 614 ). 4. Heard the learned counsel, perused the impugned order and considered the case law cited at the Bar. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is as under:- “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.” A bare perusal of the provision clearly reveals that it can be divided into three parts: firstly, part one which bestows a discretion upon the Court to allow a party to alter or to amend his pleadings. Secondly, the Court is bound to permit an amendment if the amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, and lastly if the party, seeking an amendment, establishes his due diligence in making a prayer for amending of his pleading. In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court is of the opinion that in case the amendment were germane to the controversy involved, in case it does not cause any injustice to opposite party, in case it does not change the nature of the suit, then the amendment should be allowed. However, the amendment cannot be for the asking of a party. The Court is duty bound to apply the test prescribed both by Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and by the test introduced by the Apex Court while interpreting the said provision. According to the proviso, the party seeking an amendment has to establish his “due diligence” in making the prayer. For the privilege to amend the pleadings cannot be used by a litigant for ulterior motives. Therefore, the party seeking an amendment has to establish his bona fide, through his conduct, clearly showing that he has been diligent enough for seeking an amendment within a reasonable period. For the privilege to amend the pleadings cannot be used by a litigant for ulterior motives. Therefore, the party seeking an amendment has to establish his bona fide, through his conduct, clearly showing that he has been diligent enough for seeking an amendment within a reasonable period. In the case of J. Samuel & others vs. Gattu Mahesh & others ( (2012) 2 SCC 300 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the proviso and has opined as under:- “18. The primary aim of the court is to try the case on its 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 court so that the court has access to all the relevant information in coming to its decision. Therefore, at times it is required to permit parties to amend their plaints. The Court's discretion to grant permission for a party to amend his pleading lies on two conditions, firstly, no injustice must be done to the other side and secondly, the amendment must be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. However to balance the interests of the parties in pursuit of doing justice, the proviso has been added which clearly states 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.” (emphasis supplied) 19. Due diligence is the idea that reasonable investigation is necessary before certain kinds of relief are requested. Duly diligent efforts are a requirement for a party seeking to use the adjudicatory mechanism to attain an anticipated relief. An advocate representing someone must engage in due diligence to determine that the representations made are factually accurate and sufficient. The term `Due diligence' is specifically used in the Code so as to provide a test for determining whether to exercise the discretion in situations of requested amendment after the commencement of trial. 20. A party requesting a relief stemming out of a claim is required to exercise due diligence and is a requirement which cannot be dispensed with. The term `Due diligence' is specifically used in the Code so as to provide a test for determining whether to exercise the discretion in situations of requested amendment after the commencement of trial. 20. A party requesting a relief stemming out of a claim is required to exercise due diligence and is a requirement which cannot be dispensed with. The term "due diligence" determines the scope of a party's constructive knowledge, claim and is very critical to the outcome of the suit.” Thus in the present case one would have to see if the petitioner has been duly diligent in seeking the amendment of his written-statement or not. After all, it is a test that he must pass before he can be given the permission to amend his written-statement. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the dispute is between a father and a son, where a father-aged 80 years is seeking the dispossession of his son from the premises which belong to him. Admittedly the suit was filed in April 2009. Admittedly, the written-statement was also filed by the petitioner in 2009 itself. Between 2009 and 2013 thrice the petitioner had moved applications Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking the amendment of his written-statement. The first application was filed in 2011 and was decided by the learned Judge on 15.1.2011. Subsequently, a second application was filed which was decided by order dated 18.5.2012. A third application under the same provision was filed which was decided by the learned Judge on 18.8.2012. The said application was dismissed by the learned Judge by imposing a cost of Rs.11,000/- upon the petitioner. It is, indeed, surprising that thrice the petitioner has tried to amend his written-statement and yet each time he has overlooked the alleged typographical mistake contained in para 13 of his written-statement. A reasonable man would have combed through written-statement carefully and analytically before even filing his first application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amending his pleading. Thus, it is rather curious that the petitioner is unaware of the alleged typographical mistake even after three attempts to amend his pleadings. Thus, it seems that despite his exercise carried out thrice he has failed to exercise “due diligence” in culling out a typographical mistake out of the written-statement. Thus, it is rather curious that the petitioner is unaware of the alleged typographical mistake even after three attempts to amend his pleadings. Thus, it seems that despite his exercise carried out thrice he has failed to exercise “due diligence” in culling out a typographical mistake out of the written-statement. Even in his application he does not explain the reasons as to how he has overlooked an alleged typographical mistake on three earlier occasions. Hence it seems that the application has been filed with an ulterior motive to prolong the trial. Such cleverness on the part of a litigant can neither be appreciated nor allowed by the Court. Obviously the petitioner has not been “due diligent” in filing his fourth application for amending the written-statement. The learned Judge has noticed all these facts and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not been due diligent. Hence he has not been able to pass the third test laid down in Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami & others (supra) in order to plead that the amendment of the written-statement should be granted as liberally as possible. However, even in the said case the Apex Court has noted that the amendment should be allowed provided that the prayer for amendment is a bona fide one. However, it can be denied, if it is not so. In the present case for reasons stated above, this Court is of the opinion that the prayer for amending the written-statement is certainly not a bona fide one, but is propelled by ulterior motives. Therefore, the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami & others (supra) does not buttress the petitioner's case. Moreover, the learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the case of B.K.N. Pillai (supra). Of course, there is no issue with the principle established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that merely on the ground of delay an amendment cannot be denied. For the delay can be compensated by cost. However, the said principle would be inapplicable where the Court is of the opinion that the process of court is being abused by the party praying for amendment. A clever litigant cannot be permitted to take the court out for a ride. A person who misuses process of the court, does not deserve any relief from the court. However, the said principle would be inapplicable where the Court is of the opinion that the process of court is being abused by the party praying for amendment. A clever litigant cannot be permitted to take the court out for a ride. A person who misuses process of the court, does not deserve any relief from the court. As stated above, the petitioner has thrice tried to amend his written-statement, and yet he claims that a typographical mistake has escaped his attention. Such a stand is a clever ploy, and not a cogent justification for seeking amendment of his written-statement. Thus even the case of B.K.N. Pillai (supra) is inapplicable of the present case on the basis of factual matrix. For the reasons stated above this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. This petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby, dismissed.