ORDER : Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. Calling in question the legal pregnability of the order dated 25.06.2015 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Barasat in Title Suit No. 343 of 2008, the petitioner/defendant has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner/defendant expressed his anguish contending inter alia that the learned Court below failed to appreciate that in case of amendment of written statement, Court would be more liberal in allowing such amendment, that the learned Court below fell in error in not appreciating the fact that the gist of the proposed amendment has already mentioned in paragraph 23 of his written statement. According to him, purpose of incorporation of proviso in this statute was to curtail delays and not to show exit door to a litigant from the litigation proceeding. Ventilating his such grievances he has prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Court below. 3. At the time of hearing, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shaktinath Mukherjee has contended that amendment of written statement has to be considered in a more liberal manner than that of plaint. According to him, if any fact is mentioned in the original written statement then for the purpose of facilitating that adjudication, an amendment can be done by elaborating his case, which is not a new one. He further submitted that Order 6, Rule 17 starts with the word "the Court may at any stage of the proceeding allow either party to alter or amendment of pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just.". So, according to him, if it is necessary for adjudication of the real controversy involved in the suit, Courts power is not limited for rendering effective justice. He has relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 11 (Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabrawala v. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabrawala and others), AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2284 (Punjab National Bank v. Indian Bank and another), (2005) 13 SCC 89 (Sajjan Kumar v. Ram Kishan), (2007) 5 SCC 602 Usha Balashaheb Swami and Others v. Kiran Appaso Swami and Others). He has relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 11 (Laxmidas Dayabhai Kabrawala v. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabrawala and others), AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2284 (Punjab National Bank v. Indian Bank and another), (2005) 13 SCC 89 (Sajjan Kumar v. Ram Kishan), (2007) 5 SCC 602 Usha Balashaheb Swami and Others v. Kiran Appaso Swami and Others). Referring those judgments he contended that where an amendment is sought which merely clarifies an existing pleading and does not in substance add to or alter it, it has never been held that the question of bar of limitation is one of the questions to be considered in allowing such clarification of matter already contained in the original pleading. According to him, the decision reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 11 was considered in the decision reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2284. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that matter already contained in the original pleading can be clarified. Referring the judgment reported in (2005) 13 SCC 89 he has submitted that if there is some sort of deficiency so far as diligence is concerned, in that case also if proposed amendment was found necessary, the Court will permit the amendment to be made. He has also drawn my attention referring the decision reported in (2007) 5 SCC 602 and submitted that the technicality of law should not be strictly considered at the cost of rendering effective justice. 4. Learned Counsel Mr. Arnab Roy appearing on behalf of the respondent made his erudite submission that the proposed amendment was rejected by the learned Court below on appropriate grounds and for which order of the learned Trial Court should not be disturbed. He has made a forceful argument challenging his adversary that all those decisions referred to by the petitioner are relating to the main part of Order 6, Rule 17 and not covering proviso of that clause. According to him, when a proviso is added with a main clause that cannot be separated or isolated from the main section. According to him, the section including proviso has to be read as a whole. According to him, when a proviso is added with a main clause that cannot be separated or isolated from the main section. According to him, the section including proviso has to be read as a whole. He cited decisions reported in (2006) 12 SCC 1 (Ajendra Prasadji N. Pandey and Another v. Swami Keshav Prakash Dasji N. and Others), (2008) 5 SCC 17 (Chander Kanta Bansal v. Rajinder Singh Anand), (2012) WBLR (SC) 350 J. Samuel & Others v. Gattu Mahesh & Others), [2013 (3) CLJ (Cal)] (Faroja Bibi & Others v. Sk. Mustafa Ali & Others), C.O. 805 of 2015, (Mouli Nath Ganguly & Others v. M/s. King & Co. (Homeo Chemist) Pvt. Ltd. Heard rival submission of both parties. 5. It would be highly profitable for all of us to quote Order 6, Rule 17 and, thereafter, to scrutinise the relevant words used in it. [Order 6, Rule 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."] 6. In the main part of the section, legislatures intention was such that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow amendment application as may be just. If we amplify the said section in its proper perspective then it would mean that amendment can be allowed if it is just and proper for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy. Proviso has imposed two conditions i.e. it shall not be allowed after the trial has commenced. At the same time, a rider has been given 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. Now it is our duty to amplify the term due diligence. 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. Now it is our duty to amplify the term due diligence. 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. In other words, it means such diligence as a prudent man would exercise in the conduct of his any affairs. 7. At the same time, it is our duty to clarify the words commencement of trial. It has been clarified by the Hon'ble Court which is reported in (2006) 12 SCC 1 . Hon'ble Apex Court held trial is deemed to commence when issues are settled and a case is set down for recording of evidence. In the instant case, issues were framed and the case was posted for examination of Plaintiff Witness No. 1. Therefore, here the amendment sought for by the petitioner/defendant after the commencement of trial. 8. Apparently there is a conflict in the main section itself as well as proviso because in the main section it is stated that amendment can be done at any stage of the proceedings whereas proviso speaks not after commencement of trial. In the main clause there is a rider that if it was just and necessary then amendment can be allowed. In the proviso clause another rider was given unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 9. Now we are to consider purpose of amendment of pleadings. It is perhaps needless to say that amendment of the pleadings if allowed, does not mean that the issues involved have been decided. On the contrary, amendment means that it is a kind of advance notice to the other side as to the plea, which the amendment seekers may take up during the trial. In the instant case, I find that the facts which the defendant/petitioner wanted to incorporate in his written statement was a pre-existing fact. If it was a new fact, which causes surprises, in that case proposed amendment could be axed. Here the position is quite different. The plaintiff/opposite party in his plaint vide Paragraph 9 admitted that the defendant purchased a substantial part of the suit property and affixed sign board etc for the purpose of running a school. If it was a new fact, which causes surprises, in that case proposed amendment could be axed. Here the position is quite different. The plaintiff/opposite party in his plaint vide Paragraph 9 admitted that the defendant purchased a substantial part of the suit property and affixed sign board etc for the purpose of running a school. At the time of filing written statement vide Paragraph 23 the defendant/petitioner mentioned how they got the suit property. Therefore, question of purchase and question of possession is accepted by himself. At best only challenge is in regard to area of the property. It can be safely concluded that the parties knew about their respective cases and there is nothing new in it. By way of proposed amendment of written statement the defendant/petitioner is only trying to mention the mode of usage and manner of possession of that suit property. Therefore, pleadings of each other was not alien to the plaintiff/opposite party. 10. After going through, the amendment as sought for, I do not find any reason that the said amendment will cause failure of justice or irreparable injury to the present petitioner. It cannot be pre-judged at this stage that mere amendment of pleadings could possibly put the other side into trouble and there will be failure of justice which cannot be compensated by money. On the contrary, in my view, the reverse is possible i.e. refusal to permit the amendment sought for may result in miscarriage of justice and it would destroy the spirit of main section of Order 6, Rule 17. In the decision reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 11 Hon'ble Apex Court held "where, for instance, an amendment is sought which merely clarifies an existing pleading and does not in substance add to or alter it, the question of a bar of limitation is not one of the questions to be considered in allowing such clarification of a matter already contained in the original pleading". In the discussion reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2284, Hon'ble Apex Court held "the amendment only clears the confusion, if any, as to the terms in which relief is sought. It does not revive a time barred and dead claim, nor changes the nature of the suit. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said to be mala fide either. It does not revive a time barred and dead claim, nor changes the nature of the suit. In the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said to be mala fide either. In the discussion reported in (2005) 13 SCC 89 , Hon'ble Apex Court held "we are of the opinion that the proposed amendment was necessary for the purpose of bringing to the fore the real question in controversy between the parties and the refusal to permit the amendment would create needless complications at the stage of execution in the event of the plaintiff-appellant succeeding in the suit. In the discussion reported in (2007) 5 SCC 602 , Hon'ble Apex Court held at Para 19 "it is equally well-settled principle that a prayer for amendment of the plaint and a prayer for amendment of the written statement stand on different footings. The general principle that amendment of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute cause of action or the nature of claim applies to amendments to plaint. It has no counterpart in the principles relating to amendment of the written statement. 11. Therefore, if we consider the above stated decisions in its proper perspective then it can be concluded that amendment can be done at any stage of proceedings if there is no deficiency to show due diligence and/or if there is only elaboration or amplification to facilitate the proceedings of a fact, which is already contained in the pleading, then it can be allowed. After commencement of trial amendment application can be allowed only in a befitting circumstances and discretion of the Court has be exercised very sparingly. Every nitty-gritty and hyper technicality should not stand in the way of rendering administration of justice. Delay in drawing the attention of the Court certainly causes harassment to the adversary and in view the decision reported in (2011) 8 SCC 249 , the lethargic litigant should be visited with penalty. 12. After considering all these aspects in its proper perspectives, I have no option left with except to set aside the order dated 25.06.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court at Barasat. Proposed amendment of written statement is hereby allowed with a cost of Rs. 20,000 to be paid by the present petitioner/defendant to the plaintiff/opposite party by a bank draft within a month from the date of this order. Proposed amendment of written statement is hereby allowed with a cost of Rs. 20,000 to be paid by the present petitioner/defendant to the plaintiff/opposite party by a bank draft within a month from the date of this order. Learned Court below is hereby directed to give an opportunity to the plaintiff to take denial by filing further affidavit-in-chief of P.W. 1, whose examination has been deferred. 13. Accordingly, the civil revisional application is allowed in the light of the aforesaid observation. 14. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Learned Court below for their information and taking necessary action in accordance with law. 15. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.