JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing/setting aside the order dated 28.01.2014 of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Bishnupur passed in Judicial Misc. Case No. 16 of 2013 arising out of Original Suit No. 10 of 2013 of the same Court. 2. The petitioners are defendants in the Original Suit and petitioners in the Judicial Misc. Case. In the Judicial Misc. Case before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Bishnupur, the petitioners prayed for leave to amend their written statement filed in the Original Suit mainly on the ground that the proposed amendments are necessary for deciding the issues in the Original Suit, but could not be pleaded in the original written statement as the facts and circumstances relates to subsequent events after filing of their written statement. The following are the proposed amendment sought to be incorporated in the written statement filed in the original suit: “PROPOSED AMENDMENT (A) The remaining portion out of the share portion of late T. Nipamacha Singh after parts of it have been sold to Khundongbam Shanti Singh, Pukhrambam Kanhai Singh, Khwairakpam Ongbi Ketuki Devi and Pukhrambam (O) Amusana Devi as mentioned was again purchased by Shri Takhellambam Shyamkumar Singh, the plaintiff No. 3 and he is in possession of the same. The said portion purchased by T. Shyamkumar Singh lies on the northern side to the said portions sold to Khundongbam Shanti Singh, Pukhrambam Kanhai Singh, Khwairakpam Ongbi Ketuki Devi and Pukhrambam (O) Amusana Devi. “The above sentences be allowed to be inserted in the 20th line of page No. 4 of Paragraph No. 3 of the written statement just before the sentence starting with the word, the Plaintiff No. 1.” (B) The remaining portion out of the share portion of T. Biren Singh after parts of it have been sold to Maisnam Thambou Singh and Lamabam Ibotombi Singh as mentioned was again purchased by Shri Takhellambam Shyamkumar Singh, the plaintiff No. 3 and he is in possession of the same. The said portion purchased by T. Shyamkumar Singh lies on the northern side of the said portions sold to Maisnam Thambou Singh and Lamabam Ibotombi Singh.” The above sentences be allowed to be inserted in the 27th line of page No. 4 of Paragraph No. 3 of the written statement just before the sentence starting with the word, And They have.” (C) By way of giving complete confirmation and also to avoid any doubt of the land schedules – “X” and “Y” the defendant Nos. 3 to 6 have subsequently executed a deed of Release dated 23-10-2013 and which was registered on 10-12-2013 to the Office of the Sub-Registrar Office, Bishnupur being Regd. No. 428 of 2013. The land Schedules “X” and “Y” are described as Schedules “A” and “B” respectively in the said deed of Release. It may here also mentioned that the defendant No. 1 having duly purchased the land Schedules “X” and “Y” is the absolute owner in possession of the same. However the deed of release was executed for reconfirming the ownership and possession of the land schedules “X” and “Y” by the defendant No. 1 and also to avoid any doubt. It is also submitted that late T. Damu Singh before selling the land schedule “X” and “Y” gave the first option to purchase to his brothers and sisters who are the forefathers of the plaintiffs and the defendants Nos. 7 to 14. On their unwillingness and refusal to purchase the same late T. Damu Singh sold his said homestead land as mentioned above. “The above sentences be allowed to be inserted as a sub para after paragraph No. 3 of the written statement of the defendant Nos. 1 to 6.” (D) It is also further submitted that the present proforma defendant Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 11 were the plaintiff Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15 respectively in the O.S. No. 3 of 2008 who are the legal heirs of late T. (N) Phajabi Devi. On 13/6/2008 the said four Plaintiffs (present proforma Defendant No. 7, 8, 9 and 11) filed an application for withdrawal of their rights and interest in the disputed land that may be devolved from their deceased mother stand waived and surrendered and their names in the said case implicated as plaintiff No. 12, 13, 14, and 15 be removed and cancelled. And the matter was allowed by the Hon’ble Court on the same day. “The above sentences be allowed to be inserted as a sub para after paragraph No. 4 of the written statement of the defendant Nos. 1 to 6.” 4. That, the amendment proposed above shall not change the nature and character of the suit. Rather the amendment sought for is highly necessary for deciding the present suit. At this stage of the present suit, allowing the amendment shall cause no harm to the plaintiffs. 5. That the ends of justice also call for allowing the defendant Nos. 1 to 6/petitioners to amend their written statement in the manner proposed above. The defendant Nos. 1 to 6/petitioner shall also be deny justice if their written statement is not allowed to be amendment in the manner proposed above. It is, therefore, prayed that Your Honour be pleased to allow the defendant Nos. 1 to 6/petitioners to amend their written statement in the manner proposed above for the ends of justice. Signature of the Petitioners/Defendants.” 3. The plaintiffs objected to the prayer of the petitioners as stated above mainly on the ground that the stage of the suit is at after PW hearing, therefore belated stage as such cannot be allowed. After hearing of both the parties, the learned Civil Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioners solely on the ground that the trial has already begun, therefore, amendment cannot be allowed at that stage any more. The order of the learned Civil Judge is brief and short, therefore, the same is given here below: “The parties are by their respective counsel present. This is to dispose of the application for leave to amend written statement by the defendant/petitioner. Heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length. Perused the application, written objection and the intended amendments. Also perused the pleadings of the parties in the case. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit is now at the stage of P.W. hearing. The petitioners had filed a joint written statement. During pendency of the case, certain development came up which had to be mentioned and reflected in the written statement of the defendant otherwise great injustice will be caused to the defendant. Further certain facts were emitted to be informed to the ld. Counsel by the party themselves due to mistakes on their part and unintentionally. During pendency of the case, certain development came up which had to be mentioned and reflected in the written statement of the defendant otherwise great injustice will be caused to the defendant. Further certain facts were emitted to be informed to the ld. Counsel by the party themselves due to mistakes on their part and unintentionally. Hence, pray for amendment of the written statement. The ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that the intended amendment are facts already known to the petitioners/defendants whom they filed the written statement and the suit was already fixed for P.W. hearing wherein the examination-in-chief of the P.W. No. 1 is already filled, thus, this application is all conceived and is barred by the provision in Order XII Rule 17 of the Civil P.C. Hence, pray for dismissing the application. Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code stated that 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 the trial. The above rule clearly show that the amendment are to be allowed at the discretion of the Court, however if the amendment are those necessary for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the parties, then it shall be allowed by the Court. However, those rules are subject to the condition as provided in the proviso that application for amendment be made before trial of the case and in case application for amendment is made after trial had already begun in the case, the petitioner must show that there is no want of diligence on his part for not bringing the application before trial had begun in the case. On perusal of the intended amendment and the written statement, I find that the intended amendment are explanations in details of or furnishing detailed facts of matters already pleaded and averred in the written statement. On perusal of the intended amendment and the written statement, I find that the intended amendment are explanations in details of or furnishing detailed facts of matters already pleaded and averred in the written statement. I also find that those amendments will not cause any changes in the character of the written statement. Further there appears to be facts that can assist the Court in just determination of all the disputes between the parties in the case. The stage of the case is for P.W hearing where examination-in-chief of the P.W. No. 1 is already filed on records. Thus, as per the opinion laid down in catena of the cases like AIR 2009 GLT (@) 928, 2009 (1) GLT 517, I am inclined to hold that the stage of the suit is for recording of evidence and that trial has already begun in the case. As already mentioned before, the intended amendments are not new facts which had occurred or occasioned after the filing of the written statement, but are such averments of facts and details which are already averred in the written statement, I am inclined to hold that those facts are already known to the defendant before these applications is made and before trial in the case has already begun. The omission to amend the written statement at any stage of the suit by incorporating the intended amendments at any stage before trial has begun in the case is due to the very conduct of the petitioner by their omissions, and those conducts and omissions on part of the petitioner and their ld. Counsel in my opinion is nothing short of negligence and purely a want of due diligence on their part. In the result, I am not inclined to allow the prayer in the application as I find the same is barred by the proviso of Order VI Rule 17 of the civil P.C. Hence, this application and prayer therein are rejected and dismissed. Announced in open Court. This Case is thus disposed. Sd/- Civil Judge (Jr. Divn) Bishnupur” 4. In the result, I am not inclined to allow the prayer in the application as I find the same is barred by the proviso of Order VI Rule 17 of the civil P.C. Hence, this application and prayer therein are rejected and dismissed. Announced in open Court. This Case is thus disposed. Sd/- Civil Judge (Jr. Divn) Bishnupur” 4. Being aggrieved by the order rejecting the application for amendment as given above, the petitioners have come to this Court praying for setting aside the order rejecting their application and to grant leave for amendment as proposed by them on the following grounds: (i) That, the learned Civil Judge had committed an error in law by rejecting the application for amendment on the sole ground that affidavit of P.W. No. 1 has already been filed, therefore, trial of the original suit has commenced but by ignoring the fact that the proposed amendment was necessitated due to the certain subsequent events. (ii) That, the learned Civil Judge committed an error in law by deciding that there is absolute bar for amendment of the pleading once trial has begun, though most important thing to be considered in amendment petition is as to whether such amendments are necessary for determining the real controversy in the case. (iii) That, the learned Civil Judge failed to appreciate that procedural law is subservient to and in aid of justice, therefore, should not frustrate the process of justice. 5. The plaintiffs who are respondents in this case filed an affidavit-in-opposition objecting the prayer of the petitioners/defendants on the following grounds: (i) That, the contents of Para (A), (B) and (D) of the proposed amendment are facts which were already known to the petitioners, therefore, the defendants cannot be allowed to bring in those facts after the trial of the case has begun. (ii) That, on inquiry made from the office of the Sub-Registrar it was found that the prayer for registration of deed of release or relinquishment was refused, therefore, the prayer for inclusion of the statement made in Para (C) of the proposed amendment cannot be allowed as they are based on facts which is not true. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the test for allowing amendment in such stage of the suit is whether the proposed amendment would help in deciding the issues involved in the dispute. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the test for allowing amendment in such stage of the suit is whether the proposed amendment would help in deciding the issues involved in the dispute. And since the proposed amendments are necessary for deciding the real issues involved in the suit, leave ought to have been granted even at belated stage. The learned counsel further submitted that since the proposed facts to be inserted by way of amendment are based on happenings subsequent to filing of the original statement, the proposed amendment should have been allowed. The learned counsel cited several judgments in support of his submission and they are given as follows: (i) (2006) 6 SCC 498 (ii) (2006) 4 SCC 385 (iii) (2002) 2 SCC 256 (iv) (2004) 13 SCC 432 (v) 2007 (2) GLT 644 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the facts and circumstances proposed to be inserted through the amendment were already known to the defendants. Therefore, it is due to the lack of due diligence on their part such facts and circumstances were not stated in their written statement. Now that, the trial has already begun, they are barred by proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC from inserting the same by way of amendment. The learned counsel further submitted that the plaintiffs/respondents had obtained a certified copy of the order of Sub-Registrar, Bishnupur showing all clarifying that the registration of the alleged deed of release or relinquishment was refused, therefore, the subsequent event that is registration of the deed of release as sought for by the petitioners to insert in their written statement is based on a non-existent imaginary fact, hence, it was not and cannot be allowed. The learned counsel cited judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in AIR 2009 SC 1433 in support of his submission. 8. On perusal of the judgments cited by the learned counsel representing both the parties, it is clear that the principle of law as provided in Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been settled as follows: (i) That, the amendment of pleading should be allowed liberally if the facts sought to be amended are necessary for determining the issues involved in the dispute. (ii) That, amendment of pleadings may be allowed even after the trial has begun if the court consider the same necessary for determining the issues involved in the dispute, and is satisfied that the party praying for the leave to amend their pleading have sufficiently shown that they could not include those facts and circumstances in their original pleading in spite of exercise of due diligence on their part. (iii) That, Courts should allow prayer seeking for leave to amend pleadings based on subsequent events if by allowing the same will help in deciding the controversy in the suit and as that would help to shorten the litigation between the parties. 9. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the facts and circumstances stated in the Para (a), (b) and (d) of the proposed amendment given in the petition of the petitioner in Judicial Misc. Case No. 16 of 2013 cannot be allowed since the petitioners have not shown to the satisfaction of the court that in spite of exercise of due diligence they failed to mention the facts and circumstances stated therein in their original written statement. Their plea is that it happened due to lack of communication between their learned counsel and them (defendants/appellants). That however, does not absolve them of their responsibility to be diligent. Moreover, I find nothing different in the pleading proposed to be inserted in the written statement and those which are already stated in the original written statement. As rightly pointed out by the learned Trial Judge, they are nothing more than elaboration of the facts already stated in the written statement. They will hardly help in determining the issues in the dispute. In my view, the petitioners have failed to meet the requirement as provided under proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which reads as follows: “17. Amendment of pleadings…………………………….. 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 commence of trial.” 10. As for the contents at Para (C) of proposed amendment in Judicial Misc. Amendment of pleadings…………………………….. 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 commence of trial.” 10. As for the contents at Para (C) of proposed amendment in Judicial Misc. Case No. 16 of 2013, I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the same are based on subsequent events as it can be seen clearly from the facts and circumstances stated. The written statement sought to be amended was filed on 19.07.2013 and according to the petitioners, the deed of release for the suit land was executed on 23.10.2013 and it was registered on 10.12.2013. This is refuted by the respondents and it is submitted by their learned counsel that registration was refused, therefore, the prayer seeking for leave for amendment which is based on a purported event only cannot be allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioners countered and submitted that if it were refused, they would not have been given registration number, but since they have been given registration number, it is to be accepted as registered. In a case seeking for amendment, the Court is not to see the truth of the facts sought to be inserted by way of amendment. Because, the truth of such assertion can always be denied or refuted by the other party by filing a rejoinder or by producing evidence at the time of trial. At this stage the petitioners has to be allowed to assert whatever fact they think will support their case as the other party will not in any way be prejudiced or put into disadvantage. The only thing, the Court is to see in a case for amendment is whether the proposed amendment would be material in deciding the issues involved in the dispute and if so whether they are of subsequent events. The only thing, the Court is to see in a case for amendment is whether the proposed amendment would be material in deciding the issues involved in the dispute and if so whether they are of subsequent events. This court is of the view that since the case of the defendants is that the property in dispute has been sold by original owner to the defendant No. 1, their prayer seeking for leave to insert the facts and circumstances about the execution and registration of the deed of release through or by which they are trying to prove or strengthen their case, has to be allowed as denying the same will amount to denying them of stating or proving their case at the very beginning. More so because the facts and circumstances sought to be brought in by way of amendment appears to be of subsequent event, though subject to prove. In view of the above, the petition is partly allowed. The Trial Court on receipt of a copy of this order shall allow amendment of the written statement filed in the O.S. No. 10 of 2013 to the extent of inserting the facts and circumstances stated in Para (C) of the proposed amendment as given in the petition of the petitioner before the Civil Judge (Junior) Division, Bishnupur, registered as Judicial Misc. Case No. 16 of 2013.