JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. Assailing the order dated 17.4.2015 passed by the learned District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T.-I, Balasore in M.A.C. Case No. 463 of 2013, rejecting the application filed by opposite party No. 2-Company, petitioner herein, under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC for amendment of the pleadings, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The epitome of the facts of the case is that opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 being the claimants before the learned District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T.-I, Balasore, filed M.A.C. Case No. 463 of 2013 claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act due to the death of one Surendra Nath Sial in a vehicular accident caused on 26.11.2013 at about 5 A.M. morning. While the deceased was coming from his native village Jhadata to Balasore by a Mahindra-Duro Scooty bearing No. OR-01TC-116, a Ashok Leyland truck bearing No. W.B.11-B-0097 which was coming from the backside, negligently and carelessly with high speed towards Balasore, dashed the deceased at Gouduni Pokhari Chhak on N.H. 5, as a result of which the deceased fell down on the ground and sustained serious injuries on his person. Immediately, he was shifted by the local people to the District Headquarters Hospital, Balasore through Ambulance bearing No. 108. On being admitted, during the treatment the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, post-mortem was conducted over the dead body by the doctors of District Headquarters Hospital, Balasore on the same day. As the vehicular accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing number W.B.-11B-0097, the claimants-opposite parties 2 to 5 being the legal heirs of the deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation from the petitioner-company as well as from the owner of the vehicle. 3. On being noticed, the petitioner-Insurance Company entered appearance and contested the case. During trial after examination and cross-examination of witnesses from the side of the claimants, the opposite party No. 2, petitioner herein filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC to amend the written statement with regard to the facts relating to the manner of accident, which was not within the knowledge of the Insurance company, but subsequently, the same was gathered from the news paper 'Samab' dated 2.11.2013. The same was duly opposed by the claimants opposite parties 2 to 5 herein. The same was duly opposed by the claimants opposite parties 2 to 5 herein. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T.-I, Balasore rejected the application filed by the petitioner-company under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC vide order dated 17.4.2015. Hence, this petition. 4. Mr. A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the amendment sought will not change the nature and character of the case and as such, the learned District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T.-I, Balasore has committed gross error apparent on the face of the record by not permitting the petitioner to amend the written statement by allowing the application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC filed by the petitioner-company. In order to substantiate his contention, he has placed reliance on Sarat Chandra Parija and another v. Pramila Parija and others, 100 (2005) CLT 221. 5. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned counsel for opposite parties 2 to 5 stated that since the trial has commenced, the learned District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T.-I, Balasore is justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner-company under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC. 6. Order-6, Rule-17 of the C.P.C. which states for amendment of the pleadings, reads as follows:-- "Order-6, Rule- [17. Amendment of pleading - 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.] ORISSA HIGH COURT AMENDMENT Renumber the existing Rule 17 as Rule 17 (1) and add the following as Sub-rule (2). "Every application for amendment shall be in writing and duly verified in the manner laid down in Rule 15 and shall state the specific amendment which is sought to be made, indicating the words or paragraphs to be added to, omitted from or substituted in place of the original pleading." 7. "Every application for amendment shall be in writing and duly verified in the manner laid down in Rule 15 and shall state the specific amendment which is sought to be made, indicating the words or paragraphs to be added to, omitted from or substituted in place of the original pleading." 7. The proviso to the provisions contained in Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, clearly states that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial is 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. The expression "after trial has commenced" has been explained by this Court in Smt. Basanti Satpathy and two others v. Rakesh Kumar Satapathy, 2003 (1) OLR 516 , wherein it is held that the proviso, which even otherwise restricts the power of the Court to allow amendment of pleadings, which it is expected to exercise liberally, should be strictly construed and the expression "where the trial has commenced" should be read in a restricted sense. It is further held that the object sought to be achieved by the conferment of power to allow amendment of pleadings, the restriction imposed by the proviso on that power should be limited to cases when the trial as it is generally known, viz. the examination of witnesses has commenced. 8. In Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu, v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353 : (2005) 2 CLR (SC) 262, the Apex Court considered the scope of under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC which deals with amendment of pleadings and observed that by amendment Act 46 of 1999, this provision was deleted. This was again restored back by amendment Act 22 of 2002, but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless 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 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. 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. There is no illegality in the provision. 9. In Chandra Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand, AIR 2008 SC 2234 the apex Court considering the provisions contained in Order 6, Rule 17, CPC and the proviso thereof and analyzing the meaning of "due diligence" has stated as follows : "x x x x However, if it is established that in spite of "due diligence" the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial depending on the circumstances, the court is free to order such application. The words "due diligence" has not been defined in the Code. According to Oxford Dictionary (Edition 2006), the word "diligence" means careful and persistent application or effort. "Diligent" means careful and steady in application to one's work and duties, showing care and effort. As per Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition), "diligence" means a continual effort to accomplish something, care; caution; the attention and care required from a person in a given situation. "Due diligence" means the diligence reasonably expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a person who seeks to satisfy a legal requirement or to discharge an obligation. According to Words and Phrases by Drain-Dyspnea (Permanent Edition 13A) "due diligence", in law, means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible. "Due diligence" means reasonable diligence; it means such diligence as a prudent man would exercise in the conduct of his own affairs. It is clear that unless the party takes prompt steps, mere action cannot be accepted and file a petition after the commencement of trial. As mentioned earlier, in the case on hand, the application itself came to be filed only after 18 years and till the death of her first son Sunit Gupta, Chartered Accountant, had not taken any steps about the so-called agreement. Even after his death in the year 1998, the petition was filed only in 2004. The explanation offered by the defendant cannot be accepted since she did not mention anything when she was examined as witness." 10. Even after his death in the year 1998, the petition was filed only in 2004. The explanation offered by the defendant cannot be accepted since she did not mention anything when she was examined as witness." 10. In Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another, AIR 2009 SC 1433 , the apex Court has held that it is the primary duty of the Court to decide as to whether such amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. Only if such condition is fulfilled amendment is to be allowed. Further, the proviso appended to Order 6, Rule 17, CPC restricts the power of the Court and 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 plaint. 11. It is well settled principle of law that amendment of the pleadings is required to be considered liberally and technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the course of the administration of justice between the parties. But it is true that the amendment cannot be succumbed as a matter of right. 12. 11. It is well settled principle of law that amendment of the pleadings is required to be considered liberally and technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the course of the administration of justice between the parties. But it is true that the amendment cannot be succumbed as a matter of right. 12. In Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & sons and others, 2009 (II) OLR (SC), 815 : (2009) 10 SCC 84 , the apex Court held that while considering the application for amendment of the plaint, the important factors, which may be kept in mind, though these are only illustrative and not exhaustive, are as follows: "On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application." 13. Taking into consideration the above mentioned parameters and applying the same to the present context, it appears that the petition for amendment of the written statement under Order 6, Rule, 17, CPC has been filed by the present petitioner company after commencement of trial and examination and cross-examination of witness from claimant side. 14. Reliance placed on Sarat Chandra Parija and another (supra) by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the present context because the amendment sought, if allowed, would cause great prejudice to the legal heirs of the deceased, claimants-opposite parties 2 to 5. 15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the learned District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T.-I, Balasore, has not committed any illegality or irregularity in rejecting the petition for amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner-company under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC after trial has commenced. 15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the learned District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T.-I, Balasore, has not committed any illegality or irregularity in rejecting the petition for amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner-company under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC after trial has commenced. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17.04.2015 passed by the learned District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T.-I, Balasore in M.A.C. Case No. 463 of 2013 vide Annexure-5 is confirmed. 16. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.