Judgment : Sanjay Karol, Judge In this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners, who are defendants before the Court below, have assailed order dated 21.1.2014, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in CMA No.08/2014 (in Civil Suit No.100/2004, titled as Govind Singh Pathania v. Rajeev Kant and others), dismissing the defendants’ application, seeking amendment of the written statement, filed under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Defendants-petitioners challenge the order on the ground that no reasons stand assigned by the Court below, while rejecting the application. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that present petition only merits rejection, as no ground for interference is made out. 4. Noticeably, plaint was instituted on 18.8.2004. Defendants were afforded various opportunities of filing written statement-amended written statement, but despite thereof, same was not done. I am of the considered view that Court below had been over indulgent in accommodating the defendants, which fact is evidently clear from Paras-4 & 5 of the impugned order. One would not further elaborate thereupon, as observations made are borne out from the record. 5. Defendants now want to introduce plea of jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate the suit. Noticeably, Issues No.11 & 12 already stand framed by the trial Court in that regard. Onus to prove the same is fixed on respective parties. 6. Another plea of illegality/legality of various orders passed by revenue authorities in favour of owners of the property, erstwhile and present, and conferment of proprietary rights, under various laws of the land, is sought to be raised by the defendants. One finds that pleadings in that regard are there and issues (3, 4 & 11) also stand framed by the trial Court on this aspect. 7. Submission of learned counsel that amendment sought is only clarificatory in nature, needs to be rejected, as pleadings on record are unambiguously clear. 8. While contending that the order, rejecting application does not assign any reason, Mr. 7. Submission of learned counsel that amendment sought is only clarificatory in nature, needs to be rejected, as pleadings on record are unambiguously clear. 8. While contending that the order, rejecting application does not assign any reason, Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the defendants-petitioners, has referred to the following decisions of the apex Court: Kranti Associates Private Limited and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, (2010) 9 SCC 496; G. Vallikumari v. Andhra Education Society and others, (2010) 2 SCC 497 ; Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, (2009) 4 SCC 240 ; and Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manger, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others, AIR 2005 SC 4217 . 9. In my considered view, the ratio of law laid down in these decisions is squarely inapplicable to the given facts. Trial Court specifically did not deal with pleadings sought to be introduced but delved on the question of delay and intention of the defendants in filing such an application. 10. In the instant case, Court below has assigned sufficient reasons for rejecting the application. Quite apparently, application, frivolous and misconceived in nature, was filed only to procrastinate the proceedings. It cannot be said that amendment sought to be incorporated in the written statement is absolutely necessary for determining the controversy in issue/lis, inter se the parties. 11. The apex Court in Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another, (2009) 2 SCC 409 , has held as under: “7. By reason of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 22 of 2002), the Parliament inter alia inserted a proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, which reads as under: "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." It is couched in a mandatory form. The court's jurisdiction to allow such an application is taken away unless the conditions precedent therefor are satisfied, viz., it must come to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.” 12. In the instant case, trial began long ago. Defendants have already led their evidence. The court's jurisdiction to allow such an application is taken away unless the conditions precedent therefor are satisfied, viz., it must come to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.” 12. In the instant case, trial began long ago. Defendants have already led their evidence. Also, there is no explanation as to why, in spite of due diligence, plea now sought to be raised, could not be raised prior to commencement of trial. In fact, defendants plead in the application that amendment is sought on the advice of another counsel who was recently engaged to handle the matter. Now, change of counsel cannot be a reason sufficient enough, allowing the parties to amend the pleadings as per their convenience. It is not that defendants were not adequately represented. Parties have been litigating since long. Defendants were aware of their rights. They are not illiterate and rustic persons. 13. Hence, impugned order cannot be said to be unreasonable, illegal and perverse, warranting interference by this Court. 14. For all the aforesaid reasons, present petition, devoid of merit, is dismissed. 15. Any observation made hereinabove shall have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the main case. Parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the Court below on 24.6.2014. Registry is directed to immediately send the record back to the trial Court. Petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.