JUDGMENT This CRP is directed against the order dated 09.02.2010 passed in IA No.815 of 2009 in FCOP No.340 of 2008 by the Judge, Family Court, Nellore, SPSS Nellore District. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner herein is the wife of the first respondent herein. The second respondent is the mother of the first respondent. The petitioner initially filed a suit for return of gold and silver ornaments and the amount given towards household articles etc., amounting to Rs.8,02,500/-. Subsequently, the said suit was converted as FCOP No.340 of 2008. It appears that after the respondents filed counter, issues were framed and both sides evidence was closed. When the case was posted for arguments, the petitioner herein filed IA No.815 of 2009 in FCOP No.340 of 2008 seeking to amend the prayer column to claim a further sum of Rs.80,000/-towards silver articles, Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry amount and Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation and damages for the mental torture and emotional distress on account of marital disturbance due to illegal acts of the respondents. The lower Court dismissed the said petition holding that the claim is barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. Challenging the said order this revision has been filed. 3. Smt M. Vidyavathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has referred all her claims in her plaint averments and the amendment now sought is not a new case. It is also her submission that since the proceedings are pending in the Court Section 113 of the Limitation Act has no application. 4. On the other hand, Sri M. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no amendment can be allowed after the trial has commenced and in this case trial has not only commenced but the trial is over and the case was posted for arguments. It is also his submission that there is nothing on record to say that the petitioner in spite of due diligence could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 5. As seen from the averments of the plaint, it is clear that the petitioner has referred about the present claims in her plaint averments, however the fact remains that she did not specifically claim those items in the prayer column. Order VI Rule 17 CPC is as follows. “17. 5. As seen from the averments of the plaint, it is clear that the petitioner has referred about the present claims in her plaint averments, however the fact remains that she did not specifically claim those items in the prayer column. Order VI Rule 17 CPC is as follows. “17. 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.” 6. Thus, the proviso to Rule 17 makes it clear 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. In this case by stretch of no imagination it can be said that the petitioner in spite of due diligence could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The amendment now sought by the petitioner is within her knowledge. Even as seen from the averments made in the plaint itself it appears that the petitioner has also lodged a complaint under Section 498-A IPC. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 of Order II makes it clear that with the leave of the Court the party may sue for the relief omitted earlier. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it appears that the petitioner may avail whatever remedies available to her under Order II Rule 2 sub-rule (3) of CPC or by initiating separate proceedings under DVC, but as far as present suit is concerned, the trial is already over and the suit is posted for arguments. The petition filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained at this stage. If the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed consequently retrial has to be conducted and all the witnesses have to be recalled and they have to be further cross-examined. The petition filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained at this stage. If the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed consequently retrial has to be conducted and all the witnesses have to be recalled and they have to be further cross-examined. That course is not open unless the party proves that her claim comes within the proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC. 7. Subject to the observations made supra, the CRP is dismissed. No costs. 8. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this CRP shall stand closed.