Judgment : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This Writ Petition is preferred by original defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 19.03.2014 passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court in Revision Application No.37 of 2012 in Exh.22 in R.A.E. suit No.297/462 of 2007 rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for carrying out appropriate amendment in Written Statement. The Trial Court by its order dated 13.12.2011 partly allowed the petitioner's application for amendment permitting him to carry out amendment only in respect of date of Conveyance Deed i.e. in paragraph 3 of his Written Statement. 3. Few facts of the matter are as under: i) The respondent original plaintiff filed R.A.E. suit No.297/462 of 2007 in the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai against the petitioner for vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises i.e. Shop No.1, ground floor having the area admeasuring about 228.77 sq. ft in the respondent's property known as Laxmi Chhaya Building, Ramkrishnawadi, Station Road, Bhandup (W), Mumbai - 400 078 (hereinafter will be referred as 'suit property'). ii) It is the case of the respondent that they purchased plot of land bearing CTS No.636, 636/116 by Conveyance Deed dated 16.10.2006 from the Income Tax Department. The said Conveyance was duly registered on 20.10.2006. Respondent's case is that the petitioner original defendant is tenant in respect of suit property. iii) For vacant and peaceful possession, the plaintiff filed suit in the Small Causes Court. In that suit, the petitioner original defendant filed their Written Statement on 07.05.2007. Thereafter, the Trial Court framed the issues on 18.12.2009. The respondents original plaintiffs have tendered the evidence on 12.11.2010. iv) Thereafter, the petitioner preferred application under order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on 01.07.2011 for carrying out appropriate amendment in their written statement. That application was partly allowed by the Trial Court by order dated 13.12.2011. v) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner preferred Revision Application No.37 of 2012. That application was dismissed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court by Judgment dated 19.03.2014. Hence, the Writ Petition. 4. The learned Counsel Mr. That application was partly allowed by the Trial Court by order dated 13.12.2011. v) Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court, the petitioner preferred Revision Application No.37 of 2012. That application was dismissed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court by Judgment dated 19.03.2014. Hence, the Writ Petition. 4. The learned Counsel Mr. S.S. Shinghrani appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that both the Courts below failed to appreciate that in view of subsequent development, it is necessary for the petitioner to carry out appropriate amendment in their Written Statement. He further submits that though, the petitioner earlier in their Written Statement dated 07.05.2007 admitted that they were tenants of the respondent, in view of subsequent documents which they obtained by way of Right of Information application from various departments, they learnt that they were not the tenants of the respondent. These facts are necessary to bring on record for deciding the dispute between the parties on merits. He further submits that both the Courts below erred in coming to the conclusion that once the trial is commences, amendment application cannot be allowed. In support of his contention, he relies on the Judgment in the matter of Sushil Kumar Jain v/s. Manojkumar and Anr., reported in 2009(2) RCR page 179 S.C. He relied on paragraph 15 of that judgment and he also relies on the Judgment in the matter of Gautam Sarup V/s. Leela Jetly reported in (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 85. On the basis of these submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court dated 19.03.2014 requires to be set aside and this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow petitioner's application dated 01.07.2011 Exh.22 under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel Mr. S.C. Jodhavat appearing on behalf of respondent original plaintiff vehemently opposed the present Writ Petition. He submits that the respondent filed suit on 25.02.2007. In that petitioner filed Written Statement on 07.05.2007. Thereafter, the Trial Court framed issues on 18.12.2009 and respondent adduced their evidence on 12.11.2010. He submits that once the trial started, there is no question of allowing the petitioner to carry out amendment in their written statement. 6. He submits that the respondent filed suit on 25.02.2007. In that petitioner filed Written Statement on 07.05.2007. Thereafter, the Trial Court framed issues on 18.12.2009 and respondent adduced their evidence on 12.11.2010. He submits that once the trial started, there is no question of allowing the petitioner to carry out amendment in their written statement. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that admittedly in the present proceeding the petitioner made application under Right of Information Act in 2006 i.e. before filing their written statement. Therefore, petitioner cannot take shelter of the ground that they received information from the Concerned Department under Right of Information Act after filing Written Statement. He submits that even the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court in paragraph 44 observed that the petitioners have received information under Right of Information Act vide his application dated 20.12.2000. Therefore, there is no question of entertaining petitioner's application below Exh.22 for amendment of Written Statement. He submits that Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court rightly relied on the Apex Court Judgment in the matter of Ajendraprasadji N. Pande V/s. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji, reported in AIR 2007 Supreme Court 806 and Vidyabai & Ors. v/s. Padmalata & Ors. reported in 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 30, in which it is specifically held that once the trial commences after tendering the evidence by the plaintiff, normally court should not allow the defendant to amend their Written Statement. He submits that in the present proceeding, the petitioner in their written statement dated 07.05.2007 specifically admitted that they were the tenants of the respondent original plaintiff. That admission, they want to withdraw by carrying out appropriate amendment in their Written Statement. He submits that for deciding the application filed by the petitioner below Exh.22 is not necessary to go into the facts that how much area is purchased by the respondent from the Income Tax Department, because the Conveyance Deed dated 16.10.2006, which is on record clearly shows that the suit property purchased by the respondent original plaintiffs from the Income Tax Department. On the basis of these submissions the learned counsel for the respondent original plaintiff submits that there is no substance in the present Writ Petition and same may be dismissed. 7. I heard both the sides at length. On the basis of these submissions the learned counsel for the respondent original plaintiff submits that there is no substance in the present Writ Petition and same may be dismissed. 7. I heard both the sides at length. I have gone through the copy of plaint, written statement, application filed by petitioner original defendant below Exh.22 dated 01.07.2011 and impugned orders passed by both the Courts below. Admittedly, in the present proceeding, the respondent filed suit on 25.02.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner filed their Written Statement on 07.05.2007. The Trial Court framed the issues on 18.12.2009 and respondents filed their affidavit of evidence on 12.11.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner filed their application below Exh.22 on 01.07.2011 for carrying out amendment in their Written Statement. It is to be noted that even the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court specifically recorded in paragraph 44 of the impugned order that the petitioner filed application under Right of Information Act on 20.12.2000 i.e. before filing of the suit itself. The trial has already commenced and in view of judgment in the matter of Ajendraprasadji N. Pande (Supra) and Vidyabai & Ors. (Supra), the petitioners have no right to carry out appropriate amendment in their Written Statement to retract from the admission given by them initially. Even, the authority relied by the petitioner in the matter of Sushilkumar Jain (Supra) held that parties may amend the pleading before commencement of trial. The Apex Court in that matter allowed the application for amendment because in that case issues were not framed, affidavit of documents and affidavit of evidence were not filed by the parties before the application for amendment was made. Paragraph 16 of that judgment reads thus: "16. In view of the aforesaid decision and in view of the admitted fact that not even the issues have yet been framed, documents have not yet been filed, evidence has not yet been adduced, we are of the view that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC has no manner of application as the trial has not yet commenced." 8. The High Court of Rajasthan in the matter of Jameel Mohd V/s. Durgesh & Ors. reported in 2014(1) RCR (Rent) 3, held that as per the proviso of the order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., no application for amendment can be allowed after the Trial is commenced. Paragraph 14 reads thus: "14. The High Court of Rajasthan in the matter of Jameel Mohd V/s. Durgesh & Ors. reported in 2014(1) RCR (Rent) 3, held that as per the proviso of the order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., no application for amendment can be allowed after the Trial is commenced. Paragraph 14 reads thus: "14. There is another aspect of the matter which is also to be taken into consideration that as per the proviso of the Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, no application for amendment can be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter which now sought to raise by way of amendment, before the commencement of the trial. In the present case, the trial has already been commenced and the three witnesses produced on behalf of the respondents have already been examined. From the perusal of the application preferred on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that he has nowhere averred in the application that he has failed to raise the matter before commencement of the trial which he now wants to raise despite due diligence. In absence of any such averment of this nature in the application, the application preferred by the petitioner is liable to be rejected." 9. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner (tenant) and perusal of the papers, this Court finds that the present Writ Petition is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed. 10. By way of present amendment, the petitioner-tenant has taken a complete new stand and has tried to retract from his earlier admission made in his original written statement. It is also evident from the record that the respondent (landlord) has already filed his affidavit of evidence. The present ejectment suit was filed in the year 2007, which is much after amendment of the CPC, whereby the proviso to Order 6 Rule 7 of CPC has been added. It is also evident from the record that the respondent (landlord) has already filed his affidavit of evidence. The present ejectment suit was filed in the year 2007, which is much after amendment of the CPC, whereby the proviso to Order 6 Rule 7 of CPC has been added. The Judgment that has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner i.e. Gautam Sarup (Supra) is not at all applicable as the same pertains to the civil suit that was filed prior to the amendment to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and thus, the same cannot be on parity with the present ejectment suit, which was admittedly filed in the year 2007 i.e. after the amendment to Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. The second Judgment in the matter of Sushilkumar Jain (Supra) is also not applicable in the present case, as in the said case, it has been clearly held that the amendment of written statement can be sought before commencement of trial, where issues have not been framed and documents have not been adduced. However, in the present case as stated earlier, the respondent landlord has already filed his affidavit of evidence as well as documents, when the present application was moved. It has been time and again held that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 is mandatory in nature and same cannot be taken lightly and by-passed as and when court feels appropriate. There has to be a very strong circumstance for the court to allow the amendment after the trial has began i.e. issues have been framed and evidence has been led. In the present case, the respondent landlord has already filed his affidavit of evidence and the trial for all purposes has already been commenced. An admission can be withdrawn only in exceptional circumstances and the same can be allowed when certain explanation is required so as to sustain the plea. The party who has already admitted certain facts, cannot be allowed to take a complete 'U' turn and seek to amend the pleadings thereby withdrawing from the earlier stand and thereby putting up a stand which is diametrically opposite the earlier stand after the trial has already commenced. Considering these facts and law declared by the Apex Court, I do not find any substance in the present Writ Petition and the same stands rejected. 11. Considering these facts and law declared by the Apex Court, I do not find any substance in the present Writ Petition and the same stands rejected. 11. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks stay of this order for some time. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the same. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the operation and implementation of this order is stayed for six weeks from today. Interim protection granted by this Court on 07.05.2014 to continue till six weeks from today. 13. In view of dismissal of the Writ Petition, nothing survives in the Civil Application. Hence, same is dismissed as infructuous.