JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This petition is instituted against the order dated 14.11.2014 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 55/1 of 09/08. 2. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff? for convenience sake) has instituted a Civil Suit bearing No. 55/1 of 2009 against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendants? for convenience sake) for declaration to the effect that the Will and General Power of Attorney dated 4.2.2003, registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Paonta Sahib on 4.2.2003 by late Sh. Dalip Singh Walia was null and void and any sale or transfer made on the basis of alleged Will and General Power of Attorney, particularly the property comprised of double storey building consisting of residential house-cum- 7 shops etc. bearing M.C. Patiala (Pb.) No. 302/1 to 309/1 situated at Gau-Shala Road Patiala, Panjab or any other transactions made by defendants on the basis of such documents be declared null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs and the property subsequently purchased from the income/sale proceeds of the above mentioned transfers made on the basis of forged and fictitious Will and G.P.A. dated 4.2.2003 by the defendants in connivance with each other, particularly the land comprised in Khewat No. 164 min, Khatoni No. 378 min, Kh. No. 156 measuring 341.25 sq. mtrs., situated at Mauza Paonta Sahib, as per Jamabandi for the year 2002-03, be declared properties of the plaintiff and defendant No. 3. They be declared owners of all movable and immovable properties left behind by late Sh. Dalip Singh father of plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 3 to the extent of 1/2 share each with consequential relief of restraining the defendants from further alienating, encumbering the said property in any manner. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing Written Statement. The plaintiff has moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the vendees. The application was rejected on 16.2.2013. The plaintiff filed CMPMO No. 111 of 2013. The same was dismissed by this Court on 12.11.2013. The plaintiff moved applications under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC was partly allowed by framing additional issues i.e. issue Nos. The application was rejected on 16.2.2013. The plaintiff filed CMPMO No. 111 of 2013. The same was dismissed by this Court on 12.11.2013. The plaintiff moved applications under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC was partly allowed by framing additional issues i.e. issue Nos. 10-A, 10-B & 10-C. 4. According to the plaintiff, issue No.3 was wrongly framed. According to the defendants, issue No. 3 was rightly framed. The fact of the matter is that issues were framed on 8.2.2010. The application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC was filed very belatedly. It is evident from the pleadings of the parties that Sh. Dalip Singh was the common ancestor of the parties. The plaintiff has claimed ½ share in the suit property. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., has rightly come to the conclusion that issue No. 3 was rightly framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. 5. Now, as far as the application preferred by the plaintiff under order 6 Rule 17 is concerned, the same was rejected by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. on 3.12.2014 in entirety. According to the plaintiff the sale deeds were illegal and void as well as Will in favour of Gagan Deep Kaur was also null and void. This application was also contested by the defendants. The sale deeds were effected during the time of Sh. Dalip Singh Walia. The application has been filed belatedly and that too after the commencement of the trial. The application has been filed merely to delay the trial. Rather, the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was mis-conceived. 6. Their lordship in the case of J. Samuel and ors. Vrs. Gattu Mahesh and others, reported in (2012) 2 SCC 300 , have held that 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. Thereafter, their lordships have referred to the proviso which provides 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. Their lordships have further held that 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. A party requesting a relief stemming out of a claim is required to exercise due diligence. This requirement 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. Their lordships have held as under: “12) 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. 13) 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. 13) 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. 14) 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.” 7. In the instant case, the applicant has failed to prove that why despite exercising “due diligence” he could not move the application for seeking amendment earlier. There is no illegality or perversity in the order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur, H.P., dated 14.11.2014. 8. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed, so also the pending application (s), if any.