JUDGMENT Anil Kumar,J. Heard Sri Ram Kushgal Tewari, learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record. 2. Facts in brief of the present case are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction registered as Regular Suit No. 432 of 2005 (Sattidin and others Vs. Hatim and others). During the pending of the said suit, an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been moved by the plaintiff, the same was allowed by an order dated 18.12.2014 passed by trial court. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant filed a civil Revision No. 9 of 2015 ( (hatim Khan Vs. Sattidin and another) , dismissed by an order dated 11.09.2015, under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record and taking into consideration the finding given by the court below that by way of amendment, no pre-judice will cause to the defendant and the amendment is necessary for disposal of the controversy involved in the matter in question as well as law as laid down by Hon'ble the apex Court in the case of Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha and another (2009) 2 SCC 409 wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under: - " By reason of the Civil Procedure Code ( Amendment) Act,2002 ( Act 22 of 2002) Parliament inter alia inserted a proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, which reads as under: - "Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trail 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 condition precedent therefore 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. It is the primal duty of the court to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. Only if such a condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to be allowed. However, proviso appended to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the court. It is the primal duty of the court to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. Only if such a condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to be allowed. However, proviso appended to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the court. It puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction. The Court's jurisdiction, in a case of this nature is limited. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein , is found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment of the plain." 4. Further in the case of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur Vs. North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur Bhawan Das (d) By L.Rs.2008 (3) ARC 911 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: - "In so far as the principles which govern the question of granting or disallowing amendments under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C, ( as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order VI , Rule 17 C.P.C. Postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil Vs. Kalgaonda Shidgonda Patil and others, AIR 1957 SC 363 , which still holds the field, it was held that all amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions (a) of not working injustice to the other side, and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Amendments should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs.( Also see: Gajanan Jaikishan Joshi Vs. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar, (1990) 1 SCC 166 : 1990 SCFBRC 134)". 5. Thus in nutshell , the provisions of amendment of pleading provided under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC as exits today can be summarized and crystallized as under: - " Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code deals with amendment of pleadings . By Amendment Act 46 of 1999, this provision was deleted . 5. Thus in nutshell , the provisions of amendment of pleading provided under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC as exits today can be summarized and crystallized as under: - " Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code deals with amendment of pleadings . By Amendment Act 46 of 1999, this provision was deleted . It has against been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being 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 proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment to any stage. Now , if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of the due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous application which are filed to delay the trial. There is no illegality in the provision." 5. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders under challenge in the present writ petition. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.