JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against order dated 12.03.2015 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC has been rejected. 2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioners regarding land comprised in sale deed dated 19.09.1997 from Radha Krishna - the original Patta holder from Gram Panchayat, Jasol. 3. The suit was resisted by the petitioners-defendants and the trial court framed several issues. 4. The evidence of the plaintiff was over and thereafter the petitioners produced two documents under provisions of Order 8, Rule 1A CPC, which application was allowed by the trial court by its order dated 17.01.2014; where after, when the petitioners sought to exhibit the said documents, an objection was raised by the plaintiff, which objection was sustained by the trial court and the writ petition filed by the petitioners being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7727/2014 was also dismissed by this Court, inter alia, giving liberty to the petitioners to undertake appropriate procedure for the purpose of producing/exhibiting the documents in evidence. 5. In the meanwhile, the petitioners filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the written statement based on the document i.e. the Patta dated 16.01.1939; it was, inter alia, claimed in the application that the petitioners were not aware of the said Patta and as soon as the same was made available to the petitioners, they have filed the application seeking amendment. 6. The application was opposed by the plaintiff, inter alia, on the ground that the same was barred under proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC and it has already been directed that the document cannot be exhibited. 7. 6. The application was opposed by the plaintiff, inter alia, on the ground that the same was barred under proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC and it has already been directed that the document cannot be exhibited. 7. The trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the contention raised by the petitioners regarding their knowledge about the document cannot be believed; the evidence of the plaintiff is over and sufficient opportunity has been granted to the defendants to lead evidence; the suit was pending since 1999 and it appears that the defendants want to fill in the lacuna and, therefore, the grant of permission to amend the written statement was not justified; the reasons indicated for delay cannot be accepted in the circumstances of the case; further, in view of the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC the application cannot be accepted and, consequently, dismissed the application seeking amendment. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the application as the same has been passed in utter disregard of sound judicial precedent as it is well settled that all necessary amendments are permissible at any stage of the suit; it is further submitted that the amendment goes to the root of the case as the land in question could not have been alienated and, as such, the same takes away the very basis of filing of the suit and, therefore, the trial court should have granted the amendment; it was submitted that despite the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, looking to the facts of the case, the trial court should have granted the amendment. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material placed on record. 10. The trial court has in its impugned order indicated several reasons for rejecting the application filed by the petitioners; the reasons indicated by the trial court are most germane and are in accordance with the provisions of law. 11. Proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC requires 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. 11. Proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC requires 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. In the present case, the trial has commenced long back and rather it is near conclusion; the petitioners have failed to show that despite due diligence the above aspect could not have been raised by them before the commencement of the trial; the proceedings, reference to which have been made by the petitioners, also appear to have commenced long back and there is no reference in the application filed by the petitioners regarding the knowledge of the document; a passing reference has been made that the petitioners were not aware about the documents earlier, which is not sufficient for the purpose of complying with the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC. 13. An apprehension has been expressed by learned counsel for the petitioners that in case the petitioners are not permitted to amend the written statement, the documents filed by the petitioners and taken on record by the trial court may not be permitted to be exhibited by the trial court, the said aspect of the matter cannot be relevant for the purpose of grant of amendment; the marking of exhibits has already been turned down by the trial court and this Court while deciding the writ petition filed by the petitioners has already granted the liberty to the petitioners to adopt appropriate procedure. 14. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******