ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 14.5.2015 in Civil Suit No.63-A/2013 passed by I Civil Judge, Class­II, Gwalior. Plaintiff's application under Order VI rule 17 read with section 151 CPC have been rejected. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this petition are to the effect that the plaintiff has filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants' as regards non-residential accommodation (shop) to be declared that the plaintiff is tenant at monthly rent of Rs.1,000/­ with effect from 1.2.2011 and the defendants' be restrained by issuing permanent injunction not to evict the plaintiff forcibly from the suit shop. Defendant No.1 has filed written statement and also counter­claim inter alia contending that the plaintiff has failed to pay the rent regularly after June, 2011, therefore, the plaintiff is liable to be evicted from the suit premise on the ground envisaged under section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Besides, the suit premise is bona fide required by the defendant No.1/respondent on the ground envisaged under section 12(1)(f) of the Act. 3. Upon completion of pleadings, the trial Court framed issues. Plaintiff's evidence has commenced. The trial Court in compliance of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4900/2014 wherein a direction has been issued to expedite disposal of the suit within one year has further fixed the case for recording the evidence of remaining witnesses of the plaintiff. At this stage, the plaintiff/petitioner has filed an application under Order VI rule 17 read with section 151 CPC dated 17.3.2015 on the premise that on 16.3.2015 when he was cleaning the shop, he found a paper cutting having news item dated 30.3.2011 published daily news paper, Dainik Bhaskar showing owner of the suit property as Ram Nath Sharma. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order VI rule 17 read with section 151 CPC for amendment in the plaint to assert that the suit premise is not of the ownership of defendants/respondents but is of the ownership of one Ram Nath Sharma. 4. The aforesaid application was opposed by the defendants/respondents. 5. The trial Court considered the aforesaid application and found that the alleged paper cutting is of dated 30.3.2011, i.e., prior to filing of the instant suit. 4. The aforesaid application was opposed by the defendants/respondents. 5. The trial Court considered the aforesaid application and found that the alleged paper cutting is of dated 30.3.2011, i.e., prior to filing of the instant suit. There is no justification to assert the same by seeking amendment as late as in the month of March, 2015, i.e., after more than 4 years of filing of the suit. The aforesaid amendment is not based on subsequent event and the trial has commenced as a result, there is no justification to allow the same, more so, the application has been filed only with a view to delay proceedings of the litigation though time limit has been fixed for deciding the suit by the High Court. With the aforesaid reasonings, the trial Court has dismissed the application. 6. Having perused the order impugned, in the opinion of this Court, the reasonings assigned by the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error as the proposed amendment was not based on subsequent event. The assertion that the suit property is of the ownership of Ram Nath Sharma has been based upon a news paper cutting of the year 2011 which was sought to be brought on record through amendment in the year 2015 and that too there was a direction by this Court for expeditious disposal of the suit itself shows that the plaintiff/petitioner has made deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings without any justifiable reasons. 7. This Court while deciding Writ Petition No.8063/2014 (Kamal Singh and others v. Jagram and others) has taken note of the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, reported in 2014(3) MPHT 212, Pratap and others v. Ganeshram and others wherein learned single Judge has dealt with the law as regards scope and jurisdiction under Order VI rule 17 CPC as laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in the cases, reported in (2009)2 SCC 409 , Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another, (2011)12 SCC 268 , State of Madhya Pradesh v. Union of India and another and (2012)11 SCC 341 , Abdul Rehman and another v. Ruldu and others. 8. 8. After the amendment was brought in as contained under Order VI rule 17 CPC by Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act No.22 of 2002), added the proviso which reads as under : “Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court come to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.” 9. It is couched in a mandatory form. The Court's jurisdiction to allow such an application is made subject to fulfilment of the conditions incorporated thereunder, i.e., before the Court enters into the arena of justifiability of the proposed amendment. It has to come to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. 10. The scope and meaning of commencement of the trial has also received an authoritative interpretation in the case of Vidya Bai (supra), which reads as under: “19. 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 VI rule 17 CPC restricts the power of the Court's jurisdiction, in a case of this nature is limited. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, ils found to be existing, the Court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment of the plaint.” 11. In State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), the Supreme Court held in paragraph 7 of the judgment that the proviso to Order VI rule 17 CPC curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. If application for amendment is filed after commencement of trial, it must be shown that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. 12. In Abudl Rehman (supra), the Supreme Court opined as under : “The Courts have to be liberal in accepting the same, if the same is made prior to the commencement of the 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.” 13. 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.” 13. In view of the above, the law is well settled. 14. In the present case, the proposed amendment is not based on subsequent event. Hence, the application, in the opinion of this Court has rightly been rejected by the trial Court bearing in mind the proviso appended to Order VI rule 17 CPC and the law in that behalf having been finally settled by the apex Court and followed by this Court in catena of judgments. 15. In view of the above, this petition is devoid of substance and accordingly, dismissed.