JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: (Oral) - CM No.11900-CII-2014 Application is allowed as prayed for. CR No. 4004 of 2014 1. The plaintiffs have filed this revision petition against the order dated 23.4.2014 by which their application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC to amend their plaint is dismissed. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that they were mortgagees in possession of the property in dispute which was eventually sold to them on 2.5.2007. They filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, namely, his vendor, when she tried to interfere in their possession. In the written statement, the defendant took the plea that the property in dispute was also mortgaged with Canara Bank, who had sold it to one Jasvir Kaur on 19.8.2009 and she further sold it to her on 23.8.2009. When this fact came to the notice of the plaintiffs, they instead of converting the suit from permanent injunction to declaration proceeded with it and after issues were framed, they led their entire evidence which was closed in affirmative. The defendant also examined some witnesses. At that stage, the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint, which has been dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that it has been filed at a belated stage. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after the sale deed dated 2.5.2007, the land in dispute could not have been sold by Canara Bank to Jasvir Kaur on 19.8.2009 and this fact was not within their knowledge when they filed the suit otherwise they would have challenged the said action of the Canara Bank much less the sale deed by filing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 5. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 5. Normally, the suit for permanent injunction is converted into suit for declaration if a subsequent event envisages an eclipse on the title of the property enjoyed by the plaintiffs but here is the case where the plaintiffs came to know about the fact that the property in dispute has been sold by the Canara Bank to Jasvir Kaur from the written statement filed by the defendant yet they did not choose to amend the plaint and decided to proceed with the suit for permanent injunction in which the issues were accordingly framed and the plaintiffs led their entire evidence in affirmative. When the defendant was leading her evidence, the present application has been filed after the amendment in Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC in which the proviso has been added 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. The plaintiffs has to be vigilant enough to understand the case of the defendant if it has been brought in her written statement and should have asked for amendment of the plaint if it was required but such type of litigant, who came to know about the facts of the disposal of the property in dispute by Canara Bank, remained silent till his own evidence was concluded and the evidence of the defendant, who had already examined three witnesses, the application is not maintainable. 6. Thus, I do not find any error in the impugned order of the Court below and hence, the present revision is hereby dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————