ORDER : SUJOY PAUL, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 29-2-2012 whereby the amendment application of the defendant dated 30-1-2012 was allowed by the Court below. Admittedly, the issues were framed in the year 2009 itself. Affidavits under Order 18, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code were filed on 9-11-2009. Thus, trial began way back in 2009. The singular question needs determination is whether after commencement of trial, the amendment application could have been allowed by the Court below when no due diligence was shown by the respondent/defendant in belatedly filing the amendment application? 2. Shri P.C. Chandil, Advocate for the petitioner relied on proviso to Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code and judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Vidyabai and Others Vs. Padmalatha and Another, (2009) 2 SCC 409 3. Per Contra, Shri M.B. Mangal and Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents relied on Pahelwan Singh and Others Vs. Leela Bai and Others, AIR 1998 MP 152 , Baldev Singh and Others Etc. Vs. Manohar Singh and Another Etc., (2006) 6 SCC 498 and 2072 (III) MPWN 104 SC, Abdul Rehman v. Mohd. Ruldu. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The judgment of Pahalwan Singh has no application in the present matter because proviso to Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code was inserted in the year 2002. In Vidya Bai (supra) the Apex Court opined that showing due diligence is jurisdictional fact and unless said fact is established, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the amendment application (See para 10). The judgment of Baldev Singh (supra) was considered in Vidya Bai. In Abdul Rehman, the Apex Court after considering the effect of said proviso opined as under:--- "7. It is clear that parties to the suit are permitted to bring forward amendment of their pleadings at any stage of the proceedings for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between them. The Courts have to be liberal in accepting the same, if the same is made prior to the commencement of trial. It is clear that parties to the suit are permitted to bring forward amendment of their pleadings at any stage of the proceedings for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between them. The Courts have to be liberal in accepting the same, if the same is made prior to the commencement of trial. If such application is made after the commencement of the trial, in that event, the Court has to arrive at a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." (Emphasis Supplied) 6. A careful reading of this para makes it clear that Apex Court in no uncertain terms made it clear that parameters for considering and allowing the amendment application, which is filed before commencement of trial and after commencement of trial are different. If amendment is filed after commencement of trial, party must show due diligence. Thus, I am unable to hold that there is any deviation in view taken by the Apex Court in Abdul Rehman from the earlier view taken in Vidya Bai. I deem it proper to add that proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 does not distinguish about the nature of amendment. The amendment may be factual or purely a legal one, in both the situations, party seeking amendment after commencement of trial must establish due diligence. 7. In this view of the matter, the order of Court below needs to be interfered with. The Court below gave a specific finding that amendment is belatedly filed. However, without getting satisfied about due diligence shown by other side, Court below mechanically allowed the amendment application. It runs contrary to said proviso and settled legal position. As analyzed above, the impugned order to the extent amendment application was allowed needs to be interfered with. Resultantly, order dated 29-2-2012 to the said extent is set aside. Petition is allowed.