JUDGMENT Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora,J. Heard. 2. Petitioners have filed a suit against the private respondents which was registered as Suit No. 956 of 1990. In the said pending suit, petitioners moved an application 14.7.2015 for amendment in the plaint which was seriously contested by the defendants to the suit. 3. The Trial Court has rejected the application of the petitioners (112Ka1) for amendment which was assailed by the petitioners in Civil Revision No. 56 of 2015 before the District Judge. 4. The Revisional court while rejecting the revision vide judgment and order dated 10.9.2015 observed that the facts which the petitioners want to bring by way of amendment was in the knowledge of the petitioner since last 25 years but the petitioners waited for such a long years and now they have come up with the said application that too when the case is fixed for arguments. 5. In view of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court comes to conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. In the instant case, the petitioners want to incorporate the facts by way of amendment after the evidence is over and which was in his knowledge much earlier. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order by which amendment application of the petitioners which has been rejected by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Trial Court. 6. Before, I part with this order, it may be noticed that proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC provides that amendment of pleadings shall not be allowed when the trial of the suit has already commenced. From the record, it comes out that the state of evidence is over and the case is fixed for final argument. One cannot ignore the fact that 25 years have already elapsed but the proceedings have yet not been concluded. 7. All these aspects of the matter have been considered by the courts below and the impugned orders cannot be faulted. Accordingly, no good ground is made out for warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed. 8. 7. All these aspects of the matter have been considered by the courts below and the impugned orders cannot be faulted. Accordingly, no good ground is made out for warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed. 8. However, considering the fact that Suit No.956 of 1990; Shiv Poojan and others vs. Baleshwar an others, is pending disposal since 1990, the Trial Court is directed to make an earnest effort to consider and decide in accordance with law expeditiously within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 9. It is also made clear that the trial Court will not grant any adjournment to either of the parties in the aforesaid suit except in the exceptional circumstances.