JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. Present Civil Revision has been filed by the plaintiff/ revisionist with the prayer that the impugned order dated 15.07.2015, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division ) Nainital, in Civil Suit No. 68 of 2009 (Dhananjay Singh Bisht v. Shamsher Singh @ Surendra and other), be set aside and the amendment application of the revisionist may be allowed. 2. The grounds taken up by the plaintiff/revisionist in this Civil Revision are as follows: (a) Because the suit was filed by the revisionist seeking permanent injunction regarding the suit property called Mayvilla Kothi with the boundaries mentioned in the plaint. (b) Because the basis of the suit is that father of the parties have not partitioned his property among the legal heirs during his life time. (c) Because after the death of late Narendra Singh Bisht, name of all his four sons and widow was mutated equally for his properties. (d) Because ultimately as mentioned in para 5 mutual settlement was entered and it was decided that the plaintiff will keep the Mayvilla Kothi in Nainital as well as ?rd of rent recovered from Delhi Property. Hence, since the year 2011, he is residing continuously in suit property. (e) Because this plaint was replied by the parties by filing written submission which are filed here to this application. (f) Because revisionist preferred a amendment application seeking insertion of some paragraphs in the plaint which are basically explanatory in nature to elaborate the pleadings of the plaint. (g) Because this amendment sought by the revisionist is not changing the nature of the suit. This amendment application is objected by the defendants. (h) Because the impugned order is passed by the learned trial court as it is filed to lingering on the proceeding. Hon'ble Court has not appreciated the settled legal position. (i) Because the impugned order deserves to be quashed by this Court and till the disposal of this revision, proceedings are needed to be stayed. 3. After having heard learned counsel for the revisionist and having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. moved by the plaintiff was rightly dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nainital, vide order dated 15.07.2015. The facts, which were sought to be introduced by way of amendment in the plaint, were already in the knowledge of the plaintiff. The facts, which were sought to be introduced by way of amendment in the plaint, were already in the knowledge of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not been able to show as to why no effort was made by him to incorporate such amendments in the plaint earlier. The suit is listed for plaintiffs evidence (F.H.) since 23.09.2013. The order impugned will indicate that the plaintiff has filed only one affidavit till date, in support of his case. When, on 26.03.2015, the plaintiff was directed by the trial court to adduce all his evidence, then, instead of filing the evidence, an application for amendment in the plaint was moved on 24.04.2015 with inordinate delay. Such an action of the plaintiff was not permissible in law and, therefore, has rightly been disapproved by the Court below. 4. A perusal of the facts, which were sought to be introduced by the plaintiff by way of amendment, will reveal that, they were only clarificatory in nature. True, the nature of suit was not changed, but, at the same time, the said move of the plaintiff was highly belated. The plaintiff only wanted to elaborate and explain certain facts, which were already on record. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist cited a decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mount Mary Enterprises v. M/s Jivratna Medi Treat Pvt. Ltd., [2015 (128) RD 138] to emphasise that the amendment application should normally be allowed, unless by virtue of the amendment, the nature of the suit is changed or some prejudice is caused to the other party. The facts of the instant case are different from Mount Mary Enterprises case (supra), in as much as, in Mount Mary Enterprises v. M/s Jivratna Medi Treat Pvt. Ltd case, the plaintiff wanted to amend the plaint in view of the averments made in the written statement, for which the defendant was not entitled to object in view of his own averment in the written statement. 6. Further, learned counsel for the revisionist placed a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh, (2009) 19 Supreme Court Cases 626, para 5 of which runs as follows: " 5. As noted herein earlier, the prayer for amendment was refused by the High Court on two grounds. 6. Further, learned counsel for the revisionist placed a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh, (2009) 19 Supreme Court Cases 626, para 5 of which runs as follows: " 5. As noted herein earlier, the prayer for amendment was refused by the High Court on two grounds. So far as the first ground is concerned i.e. the prayer for amendment was a belated one, we are of the view that even if it was belated, then also, the question that needs to be decided is to see whether by allowing the amendment, the real controversy between the parties may be resolved. It is well settled that under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wide powers and unfettered discretion have been conferred on the court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such a manner and on such terms as it appears to the court just and proper. Even if such an application for amendment of the plaint was filed belatedly, such belated amendment cannot be refused if it is found that for deciding the real controversy between the parties, it can be allowed on payment of costs. Therefore, in our view, mere delay and latches in making the application for amendment cannot be a ground to refuse the amendment." [Emphasis supplied] 7. It will be worthwhile to mention Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose of deciding the present Civil Revision, which is as below: "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: 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." 8. The facts, which were prayed to be introduced in the plaint by way of amendment, were already in the knowledge of the plaintiff/revisionist. The plaintiff, having had knowledge of the same, maintained silence from 2009 till 26.03.2015. The facts, which were prayed to be introduced in the plaint by way of amendment, were already in the knowledge of the plaintiff/revisionist. The plaintiff, having had knowledge of the same, maintained silence from 2009 till 26.03.2015. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the plaintiff-revisionist could not have incorporated the amendment before commencement of the trial before the Court in spite of due diligence, as runs the language of the Proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. Moreover, it cannot be said that incorporation of such amendment is necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties and that is how the present Civil Revision is distinguishable from Surender Kumar Sharmas case (supra). This Court is, therefore, of the view that the amendment sought for, could not have been allowed at such a belated stage, considering the scheme of Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. 9. No interference is called for in the impugned order. 10. The Civil Revision, therefore, fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Revision dismissed.