JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 20.09.2012 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the respondents-defendants under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC has been allowed. 2. The petitioner filed a suit for eviction against the respondents on the ground of default in payment of rent, subletting and reasonable and bona fide necessity for his son Sagir Ahmed for starting business of grocery in the disputed shop in the year 1989. 3. A written statement was filed by respondents No.1 and 2, wherein in para 3 it was indicated that Sagir Agmed was serving with Food Corporation of India, hence he did not require the disputed shop. 4. The trial court framed issues on 27.01.1995 and issue No.8 pertains to whether Sagir Ahmed was doing job with Food Corporation of India and he was not unemployed. 5. The parties led their evidence and the same was completed. Thereafter the present application was filed on 06.08.2012 seeking amendment in the written statement to indicate that instead of Sagir Ahmed servinwith FCI, the defendants wanted to insert name of Jamil Ahmed to be working with FCI and that Sagir Ahmed was contractor with FCI. 6. The petitioner opposed the same by filing detailed reply. 7. After hearing the parties, the trial court by the impugned order after noticing the contentions of both the parties passed by the following order:- ^^nksuksa i{kksa dh cgl rFkk i=koyh dk voyksu djus ds i'pkr~ U;k;ky; ds lkeus ;g vkrk gS fd mDr la'kks/ku U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA vr% izkFkhZ@izfroknh dk mDr izkFkZuki= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS fdUrq pwafd izkFkhZ eks0 ;qlqQ ugha dj ik;k gS fd bl izkFkZuki= dks bruh nsjh ls is'k djus dk D;k dkj.k gSA vr% mDr izkFkZuki= :0 1000@& ¼v[kjs ,d gtkj :i;s ek=½ dh dksLV ij Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh l0 okn i= gsrq fnukad 5-10-12 dks is'k gksA** 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court was not justified in granting the amendment sought by the defendants, inasmuch as, the same was highly belated, no averment whatsoever pertaining to the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC was made in the application explaining the reason for the delay and that despite due diligence, why the said aspect could not be indicated earlier and, therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained. It was further submitted that the trial court did not record any reason whatsoever despite stiff opposition raised by the petitioner on account of the fact that the suit was pending since the year 1989 and grant of amendment is putting the clock back to the stage of framing of issues, which is impermissible in law. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. It was submitted that a plea was specifically raised by the defendants in the written statement regarding the sons of the plaintiff working with FCI either serving with it or as contractor, therefore, due to this bona fide mistake, instead of name of the Jamil Ahmed, Sagir Ahmed was indicated and same was sought to be amended by way of filing application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC and, therefore, the trial court was justified in granting the application filed by the respondents. 10. Reliance was placed on Baldev Singh & Ors. v. Manohar Singh & Anr. : (2006) 6 SCC 498 and Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. v. K.K. Modi & Ors. : (2006) 4 SCC 385 . 11. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 12. A bare look at the written statement filed by the respondents clearly indicates that they had taken a specific plea that Sagir Ahmed was serving with FCI. Based on the submissions, the trial court framed issues way back in the year 1995, whereafter parties led the evidence on the said issues, wherein, specific examination/cross-examination with regard to the plea raised in the written statement was made by the parties, however, when the entire evidence of the parties was completed in the year 2007 and the matter was adjourned for final arguments, the application came to be filed seeking amendment as indicated hereinbefore. 13. 13. The amendment sought by the petitioner cannot be said to be bona fide or has been made with due diligence, inasmuch as, the respondents were well aware of the plea raised by them in the written statement. A specific issue regarding the fact that Sagir Ahmed was serving with the FCI was raised and repeatedly on the said aspect evidence was led by the parties and, therefore, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the respondents acted with due diligence in seeking the amendment after almost 17 years from the date the issues were framed and five years after evidence of both the parties was over. As already noticed hereinbefore, the respondents did not take any plea as required by proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. 14. The trial court has in a wholly cursory manner passed the order in just three lines by observing that the amendment was justified and has not dealt with any of the issues raised by the petitioner. The order of the trial court cannot be sustained. 15. So far the judgments relied on by learned counsel for the respondents are concerned, the principles relating to grant of amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC are well settled, which have been reiterated in the said judgments. However, as noticed hereinbefore, the application filed by the petitioner was neither bona fide nor the same was made as per the requirements of proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, the same could not have been granted by the trial court. 16. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The Order dated 20.09.2012 passed by the trial court is set aside and the application filed by the respondents under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed.