JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Preetpal Singh Rathore, for the revisionist. 2. This revision has been filed against the order of Judge Small Cause Court, Court No. 2, Badaun dated 09.09.2014, rejecting the application for amendment of written statement (119-C) filed by revisionist in SCC Suit No. 1 of 2007, Rajeev Kumar Rastogi Vs. Shiv Swarup Gupta. 3. Rajeev Kumar Rastogi filed a suit (registered as SCC Suit No. 1 of 2007) for ejectment of Shiv Swarup Gupta from a shop situated in mohalla Kansen (Pankaj Market, Chuna Mandi), Badaun city, arrears of rent, damages for unauthorized use and occupation as well as mesne profit. It has been stated in the plaint that the plaintiff was owner and landlord of the shop in dispute. The defendant was tenant in shop in dispute on the monthly rent of Rs. 625/-, which was let out to him through registered lease deed dated 02.09.1993. According to the terms of the lease deed, if the rent is not paid up 7th day of the month then tenant has to pay Rs. 200/- more. Apart from rent, the tenant was also liable to pay house tax and water tax. The tenancy was month to month. The shop in dispute was a new construction and the provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 was not applicable to it. The defendant was defaulter since September 2004. Up to November 2007, arrears of rent has become Rs. 24,750/-. Although, the tenant has deposited rent in Misc. Case No. 77 of 2004 under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 but deposit made therein was not liable to be considered. The plaintiff gave a notice dated 26.02.2007 terminating the tenancy and demanding the arrears of rent but in spite of the period of one month from service of the notice having been expired, the defendant has neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the shop in dispute. On these allegations suit was filed on 06.07.2007. 4. Shiv Swarup Gupta contested the suit and filed his written statement. In the written statement, plaint allegations were vehemently denied. In additional pleas, it has been stated that the plaintiff was not owner of the shop in dispute. The defendant was tenant of the shop in dispute on monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. At the time of initial letting, the plaintiff took Rs. 1,00,000/-as pagadi. In the written statement, plaint allegations were vehemently denied. In additional pleas, it has been stated that the plaintiff was not owner of the shop in dispute. The defendant was tenant of the shop in dispute on monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. At the time of initial letting, the plaintiff took Rs. 1,00,000/-as pagadi. The premises in dispute was an old construction over which provisions of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 were applicable. As the defendant was in need of the shop as such the plaintiff had got inserted arbitrary terms and conditions in the lease deed dated 02.09.1997, in which rent of Rs. 700/- per month was inserted on the condition that in case rent is paid up to 7th day of the month, then Rs. 200/- would be waived from it. The plaintiff has illegally enhanced the rent at the rate of Rs. 825/- per month from 05.09.1998 taking advantage of the pitiable condition of the defendant and according to the terms of the lease deed, the defendant used to pay Rs. 625/- per month before 7th day of the month and get exemption of Rs. 200/- per month. The plaintiff accepted rent up to August 2004 and refused to accept the rent from September, 2004 without any reason. Then the defendant sent rent of the months September and October 2004 amounting to Rs. 1250/- through money order, which was refused by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the defendant deposited rent in Misc. Case No. 77 of 2004, under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, which was finally decided on 13.08.2007. Rent from the month of December, 2007 was being deposited according to the provisions of Order XV Rule 5 C.P.C. The defendant has not received notice dated 26.02.2007. The defendant was not a defaulter. The suit was not maintainable. 5. Thereafter, replication was filed and evidence of both the parties was recorded and dates were fixed for final arguments. On 19.07.2014, the revisionist filed an application for amendment of written statement for adding paragraphs-8-A to 8-C in the written statement. In the proposed amendment, the defendant stated that rent at the rate of Rs. 825/ per month has been wrongly stated in the plaint. Although, execution of the alleged lease deed is not accepted to the defendant but even in that lease deed there is no clause for enhancement of the rent. Rs. In the proposed amendment, the defendant stated that rent at the rate of Rs. 825/ per month has been wrongly stated in the plaint. Although, execution of the alleged lease deed is not accepted to the defendant but even in that lease deed there is no clause for enhancement of the rent. Rs. 500/- per month rent was agreed in the lease deed, which was regularly paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and rent at the rate of Rs. 825/- per month is not liable to be accepted. The plaintiff himself has not abide with the terms of the lease deed as such its terms are not binding upon the defendant. The Court has no jurisdiction to enhance the rent. The amendment application was contested by the plaintiff, who filed his objection (122-C). Judge, Small Cause Court, after hearing the parties by order dated 09.09.2014 held that the suit is ripe for final argument and 22.05.2014, 27.05.2014 and 16.07.2014 were fixed for final arguments. The defendant in his written statement has already raised plea denying the rate of rent at Rs. 825/- per month in his written statement and arbitrary terms being inserted in the lease deed. The facts stated in the proposed amendment were already stated in the written statement. On these findings amendment application was rejected. Hence this revision has been filed. 6. The counsel for the revisionist submits that suit is based on registered lease deed dated 02.09.1997, in which rate of rent has been mentioned as Rs. 700/- per month with condition that in case of payment of rent was made up to 7th day of the month then an exemption of Rs. 200/- would be granted. Allegation in the plaint that rent was at the rate of Rs. 625/- per month was false. By the proposed amendment, the defendant has sought to bring on record the correct rate of rent as mentioned in the lease deed. This was an essential fact for deciding the controversy between the parties. Such an amendment was liable to be allowed but it has been illegally rejected causing material prejudice to the revisionist. Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. provides for amendment of the pleading at any stage of the suit. Trial court has illegally rejected the amendment application on the ground that the suit is at the stage of final arguments. Such an amendment was liable to be allowed but it has been illegally rejected causing material prejudice to the revisionist. Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. provides for amendment of the pleading at any stage of the suit. Trial court has illegally rejected the amendment application on the ground that the suit is at the stage of final arguments. Trial court has illegally remarked that the facts stated in the proposed amendment were already stated in the written statement. Earlier the defendant had engaged Late Kali Charan Sharma, Advocate on his behalf in the suit. After his death, he engaged Sri Mohit Kumar Agrawal, advocate. While preparing the case for final arguments, subsequent counsel noticed that certain essential facts could not be pleaded as such amendment application was filed. By the proposed amendment, nature of suit has not been changed. In the absence of necessary pleading in the written statement, the revisionist would not be able to rely upon the evidence on record. The order of trial court rejecting the amendment application is causing material prejudice to the revisionist and is illegal and liable to be set aside. He relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in B.K. Naraina Pillai Versus Parameshwaran Pillai, AIR 2000 SC 614 , Baldev Singh and others Vs. Manohar Singh, (2006) 6 SCC 498 , Andra Bank Vs. ABN Amro Bank, (2007) 6 SCC 167 , North-Eastern Railway Administration Vs. Bhagwan Das, AIR 2008 SC 2139 , J. Samual Vs. Gattu Mahesh, (2012) 2 SCC 300 and Abdul Rehman Vs. Mohd. Ruldu, (2012) 11 SCC 341 and judgment of this Court in The Pastor Central Methodist Church Vs. Kailash Chand Saxena, 2006 (6) ADJ 421 , Balbir Prasad Vs. ADJ Fatehpur, 2006 (7) ADJ 43 and Sanjay Kumar Vs. Waqf Chamaroo Shah, 2010 (109) RD 252 , in which it has been held that an amendment application can be filed at any stage and the Court has unfettered wide discretion to allow the amendment application to prevent multiplicity of the litigation as well as to do complete justice between the parties. 7. I have considered the arguments of the revisionist and examined the record. The proposed amendment are to the effect that rent at the rate of Rs. 825/ per month has been wrongly stated in the plaint. 7. I have considered the arguments of the revisionist and examined the record. The proposed amendment are to the effect that rent at the rate of Rs. 825/ per month has been wrongly stated in the plaint. Although, execution of the alleged lease deed is not accepted to the defendant but even in that lease deed there is no clause for enhancement of the rent. Rs. 500/- per month rent was agreed in the lease deed, which was regularly paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and rent at the rate of Rs. 825/- per month is not liable to be accepted. The plaintiff himself has not abide with the terms of the lease deed as such its terms are not binding upon the defendant. The Court has no jurisdiction to enhance the rent. The arguments of the counsel for the revisionist are that the proposed amendment is based upon registered lease deed dated 02.09.1997, which is basis of the suit as such in order to rely upon the evidence on record, the pleading was sought to be amended and the amendment application was liable to be allowed but it has been illegally rejected. 8. So far as registered lease deed dated 02.09.1997 is concerned, it was for a period of six months. In paragraph-9 of the written statement, the revisionist has admitted that rent was enhanced to Rs. 825/- per month from 05.09.1999, subject to exemption of Rs. 200/- on payment of rent up to 7th day of the month. Thus the defendant has admitted rate of rent of Rs. 825/- per month and payment of Rs. 625 per month as well as issue of rent receipts at this rate. Now by the proposed amendment, the defendant want to withdraw his admission in respect of rate of rent. Other allegations in the proposed amendment challenging validity of lease deed dated 02.09.1997 were already made in written statement and finding of the Trial Court in this respect does not suffer from any illegality. 9. Supreme Court in Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Ladha Ram, AIR 1977 SC 680 , held that the defendants cannot be allowed to change completely the case made in paras 25 and 26 of the written statement and substitute an entirely different and new case. 9. Supreme Court in Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Ladha Ram, AIR 1977 SC 680 , held that the defendants cannot be allowed to change completely the case made in paras 25 and 26 of the written statement and substitute an entirely different and new case. It is true that inconsistent pleas can be made in pleadings but the effect of substitution of paras 25 and 26 is not making inconsistent and alternative pleadings but it is seeking to displace the plaintiff completely from the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement. If such amendments are allowed the plaintiff will be irretrievably prejudiced by being denied the opportunity of extracting the admission from the defendants. Same view has been taken in Heera Lal Vs. Kalyan Mal, (1998) 1 SCC 278 , Gautam Swarup Vs. Leela Jetly, (2008) 7 SCC 85 , Sumesh Singh Vs. Phoolan Devi, (2009) 12 SCC 689 and Vishwanath Agrawal Vs. Savitri Bera, (2009) 15 SCC 693 . 10. In B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai, (2000) 1 SCC 712 , relied upon by the counsel for the revisionist, Supreme Court held that The principles applicable to the amendments of the plaint are equally applicable to the amendments of the written statements. The courts are more generous in allowing the amendment of the written statement as the question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event. The defendant has a right to take alternative plea in defence which, however, is subject to an exception that by the proposed amendment the other side should not be subjected to injustice and that any admission made in favour of the plaintiff is not withdrawn. All amendments of the pleadings should be allowed which are necessary for determination of the real controversies in the suit provided the proposed amendment does not alter or substitute a new cause of action on the basis of which the original lis was raised or defence taken. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to the pleadings. Proposed amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated by costs. Inconsistent and contradictory allegations in negation to the admitted position of facts or mutually destructive allegations of facts should not be allowed to be incorporated by means of amendment to the pleadings. Proposed amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated by costs. No amendment should be allowed which amounts to or relates (sic results) in defeating a legal right accruing to the opposite party on account of lapse of time. The delay in filing the petition for amendment of the pleadings should be properly compensated by costs and error or mistake which, if not fraudulent, should not be made a ground for rejecting the application for amendment of plaint or written statement. 11. Now the next question arise as to whether the proposed amendment can be allowed in view of Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. The defendant alleged that the earlier counsel committed negligence in drafting the written statement. The defendant, being a semi illiterate person, could not know about it. When he engaged new counsel then the defect was noticed. Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., as amended in the year 2002, is quoted below: - "17. Amendment of pleadings.--The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading 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." 12. Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Assn. (II) v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 , held that Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code deals with amendment of pleadings. By Amendment Act 46 of 1999, this provision was deleted. It has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being 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. It has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being 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. The proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Now, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial. There is no illegality in the provision. 13. The phrase "due diligence" came for consideration before Supreme Court in Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand, AIR 2008 SC 2234 , in which it has been held that the words "due diligence" have not been defined in the Code. According to Oxford Dictionary (Edn. 2006), the word "diligence" means careful and persistent application or effort. "Diligent" means careful and steady in application to one's work and duties, showing care and effort. As per Black's Law Dictionary (18th Edn.), "diligence" means a continual effort to accomplish something, care; caution; the attention and care required from a person in a given situation. "Due diligence" means the diligence reasonably expected from, and ordinarily exercised by a person who seeks to satisfy a legal requirement or to discharge an obligation. According to Words and Phrases by Drain-Dyspnea (Permanent Edn. 13-A) "due diligence", in law, means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible. "Due diligence" means reasonable diligence; it means such diligence as a prudent man would exercise in the conduct of his own affairs. 14. Supreme Court again in J. Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh, (2012) 2 SCC 300 , held that 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. 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. A party requesting a relief stemming out of a claim is required to exercise due diligence and it 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. In the given facts, there is a clear lack of "due diligence" and the mistake committed certainly does not come within the preview of a typographical error. Similar view was taken in Vidyabai Vs. Padma Latha, (2009) 2 SCC 409 , Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. Manoj Kumar, (2009) 14 SCC 38 and Abdul Rehman Vs. Mohd. Ruldu, (2012) 11 SCC 341 . 15. The written statement was drafted by an advocate after reading the plaint. After legal advice, it cannot be said that in exercise of "due diligence" the fact sought to be brought in the pleading by way of amendment was not in the knowledge of the defendant. A distinction has to be drawn between 'due diligence' and 'negligence'. The case of the defendant falls in the category of 'negligence' and not 'due diligence'. Trial Court rightly rejected the amendment application, as Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C., now castes a rider on the power of the Court in allowing amendment application. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the revision has no merit and is dismissed.