JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. – Heard Ms. Prashansa Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Deepanshu Das, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record. 2. Facts in brief of the present case that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction registered as Regular Suit No. 21 of 2002, in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Lucknow, dismissed by order dated 15.01.2009, challenged by the petitioner-plaintiff by filing a Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2009 (Kuldeep Saxena v. Smt. Sukhrani and others) on 20.02.1990. During the pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC has been moved before the appellate authority for making certain amendments in the plaint, the same has been opposed by the defendant. 3. By an order dated 28.10.2015, Additional District Judge, Room No. 2, Lucknow/respondent No. 1ppellate authority had rejected the same, the said order is under challenge in the present case. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. In order to decide the said controversy, it is necessary to state the following facts in brief. Order 6, Rule 17 CPC as exists before 1999 is quoted as under: - "Order 6, Rule 17 : "17. Amendment of pleadings - The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties." The aforesaid provision was omitted by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999 Section 16 of the Amendment Act reads as follows: "16. Amendment of Order 6 - in the First Schedule, in Order 6- *** ****** ****** ****** (iii) Rules 17 and 18 shall be omitted." The provision as it exists now after the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002 Order 6, Rule 17 "17. Amendment of pleadings-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Amendment of pleadings-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Provided 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." It is seen that before the amendment of Order 6, Rule 17 by Act 46 of 1999, the Court has taken a very wide view of the power to amend the pleadings including even the plaint as could be seen from L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co., AIR 1957 SC 357 : 1957 SCR 438 , SCR at 450 and Gurdial Singh v. Raj Kumar Aneja, (2002) 2 SCC 445 : AIR 2002 SC 1003 . By Act 46 of 1999, there was a sweeping amendment by which Rules 17 and 18 were wholly omitted so that an amendment itself was not permissible, although sometimes effort was made to rely on Section 148 for extension of time for any purpose. Ultimately, to strike a balance the legislature applied its mind and reintroduced Rule 14 by Act 22 of 2002 w.e.f. 1-7-2002. It had a provision permitting amendment in the first part which said that the Court may at any stage permit amendment as described therein. But it also had a total bar introduced by a proviso which prevented any application for amendment to be allowed after the trial had commenced unless the Court came to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. It is the proviso which falls for consideration." 6. It is to be noted that the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 CPC have been substantially amended by the CPC ( Amendment ) Act 2002. 7. Under the proviso no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless in spite of due diligence, the matter could not be raised before the commencement of trial. It is to be noted that the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 CPC have been substantially amended by the CPC ( Amendment ) Act 2002. 7. Under the proviso no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless in spite of due diligence, the matter could not be raised before the commencement of trial. It is submitted, that after the trial of the case has commenced, no application of pleading shall be allowed unless the above requirement is satisfied. The amendment of Order 6, Rule 17 was due to the recommendation of the Law Commission since Order (sic-Rule) 17, as it existed prior to the amendment, was invoked by parties interested in delaying the trial. That to shorten the litigation and speed up disposal of suits, amendment was made by the amending Act, 1999, deleting Rule 17 from the Code. This evoked much controversy/hesitation all over the country and also leading to boycott of Courts and, therefore, by the Civil Procedure Code ( Amendment) Act, 2002, provision has been restored by recognising the power of the Court to grant amendment, however, with certain limitation which is contained in the new proviso added to the rule. The details furnished below will go to show as to how the facts of the present case show that the matters which are sought to be raised by way of amendment by the appellants were well within their knowledge on their Court case, and manifests the absence of due diligence on the part of the appellants dis-entitling them to relief. 8. 8. In the case of Vidyabai and others v. 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 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." 9. Further in the case of North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. 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 6, Rule 17 C.P.C, ( as it stood at the relevant time) are concerned, these are also well settled. Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. Postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. Postulates amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. In Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. 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 v. Prabhakar Mohanlal Kalwar, (1990) 1 SCC 166 : 1990 SCFBRC 134)". 10. Thus in nutshell, the provisions of amendment of pleading provided under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC as exits today can be summarised 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." 11. Other point which is to be considered in the present case whether the amendment which is sought to be incorporated by the petitioner-plaintiff in the memo of the plaint can be allowed at this stage. 12. The object is to prevent frivolous application which are filed to delay the trial. There is no illegality in the provision." 11. Other point which is to be considered in the present case whether the amendment which is sought to be incorporated by the petitioner-plaintiff in the memo of the plaint can be allowed at this stage. 12. In order to decide the said controversy, it will be appropraite to go through to the Proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC reads as under: - "Provided 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." 13. The proviso aforesaid was added by Amended Act 22 of 2002. The words "after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial", would assume some importance in deciding the present application. 14. The entire object of the said amendment is to stall filing of applications for amending a pleading subsequent to the commencement of trial, to avoid surprises and the parties had sufficient knowledge of the other's case. It also helps in checking the delays in filing the applications. Further, once the trial commences on the known pleas, it will be very difficult for any side to reconcile. Yet, under the same proviso, an exception is made where it is shown that in spite of diligence, he could not raise a plea. Therefore, it is not a complete bar nor shuts out entertainment of any later application. Otherwise, the proviso would be in direct conflict to the expression "at any stage" used in the Rule. Even the object as enunciated in the amending Act, is to allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings, where it is satisfied that either new facts have come into existence subsequent to the institution of the suit. The restriction imposed under this amended provision could at the most relate to the facts, events and circumstances which are existing or available either on the date of filing the suit or on the date of filing of the pleading i.e., written statement. The restriction imposed under this amended provision could at the most relate to the facts, events and circumstances which are existing or available either on the date of filing the suit or on the date of filing of the pleading i.e., written statement. It further goes in support that the Court is always entitled to take note and allow any amendment in regard to any subsequent event. Therefore, the said provision would not apply for addition to the pleadings of any new facts or material based on a subsequent event. 15. Further, the words "after the trial has commenced" and the words "before commencement of the trial" would indicate that the proviso would come into operation, if the application for amendment of the pleading is filed after the commencement of trial. Thus, in all caution for the applicability of the proviso a cautious distinction has been drawn between pre-trial amendments and the post trial amendments. 16. The words in the proviso under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for deciding the point in issue are " commencement" and "trial". The word "commencement" in the Law of Lexicon by Sri Bakshi defines as under : - "Commencement: - In the "Words and Phrases" (Permanent Edition) Vol. 42-A. at page 171, under the head "Commencement", it is stated "A 'trial' commences at least from the time when work of empanelling of a jury begins" Union of India v. Madanlal Yadav." 17. While dealing with the word trial both in the same book it is mentioned as under : - "TRIAL: - It is, according to Wharton's Law Lexicon 'the examination of a cause civil or criminal, before a Judge who has jurisdiction over it according to laws of the land". According to the Oxford Dictionary the meaning of the word given under the heading 'trial' is: (1) The examination and fixation of a cause by a judicial tribunal, determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused person by a Court; (2) The determination of a person's guilt or innocence, of the righteousness of his cause, by a combat between the accused. The explanation of the same in Stroud on the authority of the observation of Filed J., in Gath v. Howarth, (Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Page 3092) is that it is 'the conclusion by a competent Tribunal of the questions in issue in legal proceedings whether civil or criminal", Again in Bouvier's Law Dictionary the term is stated on the authority of a decision in U.S. v. Curtis Bouviers Law Dictionary, page 3320 to mean 'the examination before a competent Tribunal according to the laws of the land of the facts put in issue in a cause for the purpose of determining such issue" 18. Moreover, the word 'try' or trial is not limited to trial of offence, but includes a larger area and used in regard to any legal proceedings and in regard to any issue whether it be civil or criminal. The word 'try' or 'trial' would not be limited only to a restricted meaning i.e. trial of offence. 19. It is no doubt difficult to define the term 'trial' precisely; as a definition given for the purposes of one context may not be very satisfactory for another. Broadly speaking, however, a trial is the examination by the competent Court of the facts or law in dispute or put in issue in a case. It is the in jurisdictional examination of issues between the parties whether they are of law or of fact. 20. The beginning of a trial therefore, means the first date when a Court or a Tribunal begins on such judicial examination or determination of the issues including its own jurisdiction or authority in accordance with law.." 21. Thus, in view of the above said discussion, it can be held that by CPC (Amendment) 2002 a new proviso has been added to the rule, namely that no application for amendment of the pleadings 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. 22. So after the trial of the case has commenced, no application for amendment of the pleadings shall, be allowed 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. 22. So after the trial of the case has commenced, no application for amendment of the pleadings shall, be allowed 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. Proviso would not apply to amendment of pleadings filed prior to enforcement of Act 22 of 2002. 23. And the proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Now, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial (See. Saleem Advocate Bar Assocn. v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353 (3362), Vidyabai and others v. Padamlatha and another, 2009 (2) SC 409) and in the present case, the trial court has already decided the matter, thereafter, appeal is pending before the appellate court in which an application for amendment has been moved, so keeping in view the said facts as well as the reasoning given by respondent No. 1 while rejecting the petitioner's application for amendment, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the same, as such the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.