JUDGMENT : Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J.: Challenging the order dated 03.08.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court at Barasat, the plaintiff/petitioner has come before this forum for setting aside the impugned order. 2. According to the petitioner, the learned Court below failed to appreciate the point of law that the amendment of plaint can be made at any stage of the proceeding and that mere faming of issue cannot be stated to be commencement of trial. According to him, by filing the amendment of plaint the petitioners wanted to incorporate some plots in the schedule suit property and also wanted to place a sale deed for effective adjudication of the suit. He further contended that the learned Court below failed to appreciate the case in its proper perspectives. 3. At the time of hearing, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of theopposite party/defendant has categorically stated that the proposed amendment would change the nature and character of the suit and quite rightly learned Court below had rejected the said application for amendment. 4. In the interest of effective adjudication it would be profitable to re-state the factual aspects of the case. The plaintiff/petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to restraint the defendant/opposite party from transferring the suit property and from causing any damage of the same. They have also prayed for declaration of their 4/7th shares in the suit property. Although in the cause title the plaintiff/petitioner did not pray for partition of the suit property. In the plaint, the petitioner contended that originally suit property belonged to Lal Mohan Bangal and Bankim Chandra Bangal having moiety shares each. The said Lal Mohan Bangal and Bankim Chandra Bangal made amicable arrangement in regard to their possession and by virtue of that Lal Mohan Bangal alias Ghosh got 12.42 decimals of land. Lal Mohan Bangal died leaving behind his wife Smt. Ator Bala Ghosh and their three sons Tarapada, Gobinda Pada and Ashok, (defendants/opposite parties) and four daughters, namely, Bibha, Durga, Bharati, and Minati. The said daughter Minati Ghosh breathed her last leaving behind her husband Sri Rathin Chandra Ghosh and only son Soumik Ghosh. Sri Rathin Chandra Ghosh and Soumik Ghosh have been figured as plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 in the instant suit. Other daughters are the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 of the instant suit. The said daughter Minati Ghosh breathed her last leaving behind her husband Sri Rathin Chandra Ghosh and only son Soumik Ghosh. Sri Rathin Chandra Ghosh and Soumik Ghosh have been figured as plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 in the instant suit. Other daughters are the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 of the instant suit. Mother Smt. Ator Bala Ghosh being died her shares devolved upon the legal heirs of Sri Lal Mohan Bangal and Smt. Ator Bala Ghosh and therefore, the plaintiffs in all have 4/7th shares in the suit property and the defendant/opposite parties have the rest shares. Sri Lal Mohan Bangal died on 27.05.1980. After a lapse of 13 years the present defendants/opposite parties have filed a probate suit bearing Misc. Case No. 198 of 1993. The present plaintiffs entered appearance in that suit and, thereafter, it was converted to O.S. 8 of 1995. Initially the said probate suit was dismissed. For the purpose of restoration of the said probate suit, present defendants/opposite parties have filed a misc case which is still pending. It has been specifically averred by the plaintiff/petitioners that the alleged will dated 28.10.1979 is the product of fraud. It is pertinent to mention that in paragraph 11 of the plaint, the petitioners categorically stated that ‘the suit property is related only to the share of Sri Lal Mohan Bangal alias Ghosh’, so the share of other eight annas is not involved in this suit. So the said title holders are not made parties to the suit because their presence are not necessary in this suit. They have further stated that L.R.R.O.R. is erroneous. In such circumstances, they have prayed for permanent injunction so that the defendants/opposite parties cannot dispose of the suit property. 5. It appears from the record that defendants/opposite parties havefiled written statement in which they have denied all the material allegations splashed against them. They have also mentioned that the alleged will is a genuine one and it was executed after observing all the legal formalities. Ventilating their such grievances they have prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. On 08.07.2014 the plaintiff/petitioners had filed an amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code in which they wanted to incorporate 10 more plots in the suit property. Ventilating their such grievances they have prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. On 08.07.2014 the plaintiff/petitioners had filed an amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code in which they wanted to incorporate 10 more plots in the suit property. The plaintiff/petitioners had specifically stated that their predecessor Lal Mohan Bangal purchased 25 acres of land by way of Registered Deed No. 80 of 1948 from Mohammad Abdul Jabbar and actually it was purchased by joint fund. 7. Learned Court below after hearing both sides had rejected the said prayer on the ground that issues have been framed in the said title suit and that the plaintiff/petitioner wanted to incorporate new facts by way of amendment which would change the nature and character of the suit property. Accordingly, learned Court below had rejected the same. 8. In the proposed amendment, the petitioner wanted to say that the land mentioned in Deed No. 80 of 1948 was purchased from joint fund. But the recital of the said deed (copy of which has been filed) shows vide paragraph 2 that Lal Mohan Bangal had purchased the same from his own earned money. Therefore, the contention of the proposed amendment does not tally with the recital of the deed. 9. It is perhaps needless to say that after the recommendation ofMalli-Math Committee, there has been a sea-change in the amendment of Civil Procedure Code. Now a proviso has been added in connection with amendment of plaint, which runs thus ‘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’. When issues have been framed, the plaintiff is asked to file affidavit of chief in support of his case. Therefore, when issues have been framed it will be presumed that the trial has commenced. Proviso clause stands as a bar. One rider is given which speaks that unless the Courts comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. Now, I am to consider what is the explanation that has been given by the plaintiff/petitioners. Proviso clause stands as a bar. One rider is given which speaks that unless the Courts comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. Now, I am to consider what is the explanation that has been given by the plaintiff/petitioners. In paragraph 3 of the said application they have mentioned that during pendency of the instant suit the plaintiff have collected some documents relating to the suit property long after filing of the instant case. Those documents are required to be discussed in the plaint. This averment in the plaint is an evasive one. He ought to have mentioned when they have come to know it. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was diligent enough. Not only that an amendment application has been filed long after 7 years from the filing of the suit. This apart, the averment of the amendment application that the some other plots have been purchased by joint funds as per deed is not true. On the contrary the deed itself speaks that Lal Mohan Bangal alone had purchased land from his own money. Therefore, this can be held that the plaintiff/petitioners are trying to make out a new case only to harass the opposite party/defendant and absolutely a new case has been made out which is not permissible in the eye of law. 10. After going through the materials on record I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned. Therefore, I have no option left with except to endorse the views of the learned Court below. In the result, the civil revisional application stand dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000. 11. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Learned Court below for his information and taking necessary action in accordance with law. 12. Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.