ORDER A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—The respondents are the plaintiffs and the petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No. 12/2003 filed on 09.01.2003 in the Court or" Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) at Madhugiri, to pass a judgment and decree of partition and separate possession and for grant of consequential reliefs in respect of the plaint schedule properties. Written statement was filed on 19.06.2004, disputing the claim of the plaintiffs to the suit properties. Based on the pleadings, issues were raised on 16.09.2006. Plaintiffs' evidence commenced on 24.02.2007. During the course of trial, additional issues were raised on 19.06.2008. Plaintiffs' closed their case on 26.02.2009. Defendants' evidence commenced on 29.05.2012 and DW. 1 was partly cross-examined on 18.06.2012. At that stage, on 22.11.2012, I.A.15 was filed by the plaintiffs, under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w 151 of CPC to grant permission to amend the plaint, in the manner proposed. Despite the statement of objections filed to I.A.15 on 21.08.2012 and the written arguments submitted, the learned Trial Judge allowed I.A.15 and permitted the plaintiffs to amend the plaint, in the manner proposed, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- Assailing the said order, the defendants have filed this writ petition. Sri. A.V. Gangadharappa, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned order suffers from procedural impropriety and the same is irrational. He submitted that I.A.15 having been filed after commencement of the trial and there being no due diligence shown and the affidavit in support of I.A.15 having not made out any case for grant of permission to amend the plaint in the manner proposed, on account of a misdirection adopted, the impugned order has been passed, which if allowed would result in substantial failure of justice and the defendants would be severely prejudiced. He submitted that on account of allowing of I.A.15 there is a miscarriage of justice and the impugned order being vitiated may be quashed. 2. Sri Chandrashekar, learned advocate appearing for the respondents on the other hand submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and there being no new case sought to be introduced with a new cause of action or there being no change in the nature of the suit, the view taken by the learned Trial Judge on I.A.No. 15 being justified, no interference with the impugned order is warranted. Learned counsel made submissions in support of the view taken by the Trial Court on I.A.15 and sought dismissal of the writ petition. 3. Perused the writ record. 4. I.A.No. 15 was filed when the suit was at the stage of further cross-examination of DW. 1. The proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 states that no amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced except when the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial. Since the trial has commenced in the suit on 24.02.2007 and when I.A.15 was filed on 22.11.2012, the suit was at the stage of further cross-examination of DW. 1, the plaintiffs have to satisfy the court that they could not have discovered the plea proposed' in I.A.15, in spite of due diligence. Unless the court is satisfied that there is a reasonable cause for allowing the prayer, the amendment proposed cannot be permitted. 5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, 11 issues were raised on 16.09.2006. Plaintiffs' evidence commenced on 24.02.2007. During the course of plaintiffs' evidence, three additional issues were raised on 19.06.2008. Further evidence having been adduced by the plaintiffs, their case was closed on 02.06.2009. Defendants' evidence commenced on 29.05.2012 and DW. 1 was partly cross-examined on 18.06.2012 and case was adjourned for further cross-examination on the prayer of the plaintiffs. At that stage, I.A.15 was filed to grant permission to amend the plaint in the following manner: Proposed Amendment: 1. At Para No. 7 after the words he has trusted with first defendant and the father the word "the word plaintiff No. 5 may be substituted instead of defendant No. 5". 2. At Para No. 8 after the words the plaintiff came to know that, the defendants have obtained katha and mutation entries in their favour "by producing the false and created documents that is alleged partition deed dated 18/10/1972, which was created in between M.P. Puttanna that is 1st defendant and Gangamma and Rudhramma without the consent and notice to the either Channabasamma or the plaintiff and also to the father of the plaintiff. Therefore the said partition deed dated 18/10/1972 is not binding on the plaintiff share, it is further submitted that subsequently the defendants all colluding with Gangamma and Rudhramma they have created a will dated 2/11/1974 and also 3/8/1985 as if the Gangamma and Rudhramma bequeathed the same in favour of the defendant No. 1. It is submitted that since Gangamma and Rudhramma are not all having any right, title, interest on the properties therefore any documents entries by way of will or any kind written or executed between the said Gangamma and Rudhramma and Puttanna are not all binding on the plaintiff share. Therefore the alleged will dated 2/11/1974, 3/8/1985 all are created by playing the fraud with an intention to know up the share of the plaintiff. Therefore these documents void documents are not all binding on the plaintiff share". 3. At Para No. 9 after the words Schedule 'B' hereunder are the words "the self acquired properties of self may be deleted and it may be amended as follows: "after the word the property mentioned in the schedule 'B' are also acquired by way of succession and therefore the revenue entries made in the name of Grandmother of plaintiff Smt. Neelamma still the defendant created the documents for the properties of Neelamma also, therefore the properties acquired by Neelamma, therefore the entries deleted for the 'B' Schedule properties from the name of the Neelamma on the basis of created and concocted documents by playing fraud and same is not binding on the share of the plaintiff. 4. At para No. 9 after the word the Schedule 'B' hereunder the following words may be deleted "the self acquired properties of four grandmother of the plaintiff Smt. Neelamma acquired same properties which are mentioned in Schedule 'B' properties from her father, therefore all the properties mentioned in the schedule 'B' all the properties may be deleted. 5. At Para No. 9 after words the "said Neelamma had acquired the properties the word her father may be deleted" and the words from "succession as a joint owner" may be amended. 6. 5. At Para No. 9 after words the "said Neelamma had acquired the properties the word her father may be deleted" and the words from "succession as a joint owner" may be amended. 6. At Para No. 10 of the plaint after the words right over the same the following may be amended "Therefore the removing the name of the Neelamma in revenue records by producing created partition deed dated 18/10/1972 and also on the concocted will without the consent of either Neelamma or Channabasamma or her son's or the plaintiff. Therefore the same are not binding on the share of the plaintiff the said documents are created by playing fraud, only with malafide intention to know up the share of the plaintiff same has to be declared as void documents which are not binding on the plaintiff. 7. In the prayer Colum after prayer B "B(1) may be added as follows:- "B(1) declare the partition deed dated 18/10/1972, and also will dated 2/11/1974 and another will dated 3/8/1985 are the documents are created between the defendants No. 1 colluding with Smt. Gangamma and Rudhramma by playing a fraud and therefore the documents are void documents and not binding on the plaintiff share". 8. In the prayer column in NO. 'a' after the words Schedule 'A" the words "and Schedule 'B' " may be Added. The material part of the affidavit in respect of I.A.15 reads as follows: Since when the defendant produced these documents and marked, on verification and scrutiny of these documents we came to know the 1st defendant colluding with his mother created partition deeds and will's apart from that on verification of all revenue records we came to know that the name of Neelamma has been existing for 'B' Schedule properties for long time and the name has been deleted from the revenue records by created and concocted documents. Since these documents were created between them self without the consent of either Neelamma or her daughter Smt. Channabasamma, therefore we are not at all aware current possession of the documents, when they produced before the court, our advocate has brought to our notice and immediately advised to file this application, hence we are filing this amendment application. 6. Said plea was denied in the statement of objections filed to I.A.15. In the written arguments filed, it was pointed out that the evidence of PW. 6. Said plea was denied in the statement of objections filed to I.A.15. In the written arguments filed, it was pointed out that the evidence of PW. 1 clearly shows that the plaintiffs are aware of the self acquired property of the defendants based on the various documents filed along with the defence i.e., Exs. D1 and D3, which are registered documents and it is a notice to one and all. 7. The learned Trial Judge despite noticing that by the proposed amendment there is an attempt made to delete certain pleading from the plaint, has held that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants. There being an admission in para 9 of the plaint that the properties mentioned in 'B' schedule are the self acquired properties of the grand-mother of plaintiffs Smt. Neelamma, the same has been sought to be taken away by seeking deletion of the said pleading and substitution with the words 'succession as a joint owner'. Material admission made in the pleading cannot be permitted to be taken away while granting permission under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. 8. The prayer of a party to amend the pleading can be permitted subject to satisfaction of three conditions i.e., (1) No injustice being done to the other side, (2) Proposed amendment being necessary for the purpose of determination of the real question in controversy between the parties and (3) Due diligence being shown by the applicant, where trial of the suit has commenced. 9. The proposed amendment in I.A. 15, at Sl.No. 1, can be allowed on the ground that there was an inadvertent mistake. The proposed amendments, at Sl.Nos. 7 and 8, can also be allowed on the ground that the additional prayers flow from the existing pleading and based on the evidence already adduced by the plaintiffs. However, the proposed amendment, at Sl.Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of I.A.15, could not have been allowed, since it is clear that the plaintiffs could have pleaded the same even earlier to commencement of the trial of the suit. In the circumstances of the case, the Trial Court is not justified in allowing I.A.15 in its entirety. In view of the commencement of the trial of the suit on the date I.A. 15 was filed, proposed amendment at Sl.Nos. In the circumstances of the case, the Trial Court is not justified in allowing I.A.15 in its entirety. In view of the commencement of the trial of the suit on the date I.A. 15 was filed, proposed amendment at Sl.Nos. 2 to 6 could not have been permitted, as the same would cause prejudice to the defendants. There is a misdirection on the part of the learned Trial Judge. Though the plaintiffs had knowledge of the proposed amendments at Sl.Nos. 2 to 6, they have not pleaded the same earlier to the commencement of the trial of the suit and there is lack of due diligence. The view taken by the learned Trail Judge with regard to the proposed amendment at Sl.Nos. 2 to 6 of I.A.15 is irrational and the impugned order to the said extent being vitiated, war rants interference. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned order to the extent of permitting the plaintiffs to incorporate the amendment proposed at Sl.Nos. 2 to 6 in I.A.15 stands quashed. However, the impugned order to the extent of permitting the plaintiffs to amend the plaint in terms of proposed amendments at Sl.Nos. 1, 7 and 8 of I.A.15, remains undisturbed. I.A.15 filed in the suit stands allowed accordingly. The plaintiffs having already adduced the evidence, the burden of proof with regard to partition deed dated 18.10.1972 and wills dated 02.11.1974 and 03.08.1988 being on the defendants, there is no need to re-open the case and permit the plaintiffs to adduce any further evidence. The suit shall proceed from the stage at which it is now pending. The Trial Court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously and within a period of nine months from the next hearing date of the suit. No costs.