ORDER 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 20.6.2015, whereby application of plaintiff preferred under Order 6 rule 17 CPC was allowed by Court below. Assailing this order, Shri Lahoti submits that amendment application was filed after commencement of the trial. In that event, the plaintiff was required to show due diligence. He submits that on framing of issues trial begins. 2. I have heard him at length. 3. The impugned order shows that the plaintiff’s evidence has not begun. There is no material on record to show that plaintiff has filed affidavit under Order 18 rule 4 CPC. This Court in 2014(2) MPLJ 464 (Pratap v. Ganeshram and others) opined as under :- “6. The main ground of attack on the impugned order is that in view of judgment of Baldev Singh (supra), the trial has not begun. In the considered opinion of this Court, the amendment prayed for before commencement of the trial and after commencement of the trial needs to be decided on different principles. This is because of insertion of proviso to Order 6 rule 17 CPC wef 2002. No doubt, in Baldev Singh (supra), the apex Court opined about commencement of the trial, the said judgment was considered in a subsequent judgment reported in, 2009(3) MPLJ (SC) 122= (2009)2 SCC 409 (Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another). In Vidyabai, the apex Court considered its earlier judgment in, Kailash v. Nanhku (2005)4 SCC 480 . In Kailash (supra), the apex Court gave a finding that,“in a civil suit, the trial begins when issues are framed and the case is set down for recording of evidence. All the proceedings before that stage are treated as proceedings preliminary to trial or for making the case ready for trial”. 7. After considering this judgment, the apex Court opined that filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the witness, in our opinion, would amount to “commencement of proceeding” (para 11). In para 16 of this judgment, the apex Court considered the view of apex Court in Baldev Singh (s) and opined that it is not authority for the proposition that the trial would not be deemed to have commenced on the next date of first hearing. It is further opined that in the said case, documents were yet to be filed and in those circumstances, the apex Court opined in that manner.” 4. It is further opined that in the said case, documents were yet to be filed and in those circumstances, the apex Court opined in that manner.” 4. In 2014(4) MPLJ 143 (Manoj Jain v. Suman Goyal), the same view was again followed. 5. In view of aforesaid, it is clear that trial has not begun. In (2012)11 SCC 341 (Abdul Rehman v. Mohd. Ruldu), the apex Court opined that parameters for considering the amendment application prior to and subsequent to commencement of trial are different. Pre-trial amendments may be dealt with leniently. The relevant portion reads 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.” (Emphasis supplied). 6. Since in the present case amendment application was allowed before commencement of trial, no fault can be found in the impugned order. 7. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.