JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. – Heard learned counsel for revisionist. 2. This revision under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') has been filed against order dated 15.11.2010 passed on application filed by defendant under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') in Original Suit No. 530 of 2003. 3. It is admitted that after completion of evidence matter was posted for hearing and it is at this juncture amendment application was filed by defendant respondent seeking amendment in the written statement which has been allowed by means of impugned order dated 15.11.2010. 4. Counsel for revisionist contended that there is complete bar of entertaining an amendment in the pleadings when the suit is posted for hearing, unless requirement under Order 6, Rule 17 Proviso of CPC are satisfied. 5. Time and again, Apex Court has given a very wide scope of amendment of pleadings but there has been an intervention of Legislature with an object for preventing dilatory tactics to delay disposal of cases and in that view of the matter, first intervention came by virtue of Amendment Act, 1999 whereby in Order 6, Rules 17 and 18 were omitted. However, this complete omission did not found favour with the litigating people and realising great hardship, Legislature again intervened vide Amendment Act, 2002 whereby Rule 17 was incorporated but a restriction in the shape of a proviso was added therein. Order 6, Rule 17 , came to be inserted by Amendment Act, 2002, reads as under: "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 present case, entire order passed by Court below which reads as under; 161&, 1 la'kks/ku izkFkZuk&i= izfroknh 1]2@1]2@3 ,oa 3 dh vksj ls varxZr vkns'k 6 fu;e 17 lifbr 151 O;0iz0la0 vius izfrokn i= la[;k 28 , 1 ds iSjk la[;k 12v] 12c] 12l] 12;] 12j o 12y esa la'kks/ku djus gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA la'kks/ku izkFkZuk i= ds leFkZu esa Jherh pUnzdkark 'kekZ] Jherh eatwyrk 'kekZ] pUnz'ks[kj 'kekZ] ftrsUnz dqekj mQZ fiUVw }kjk la;qDr : i ls 'kiFk i= nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA 174&x 2 vkifRr oknhx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr dh x;h gSa ftlesa dFku fd;k x;k gS fd izfroknhx.k dk la'kks/ku izkFkZuk i= vFkZghu] >wBk xyr rF;ksa o voS/kkfud : i ls izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA okn esa fcUnq o oknhx.k ds xokgku dh xokgh iw.kZ gks pqdh gSA bl fLFkfr esa izfrokn i= esa la'kks/ku dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA izfroknhx.k dks mijksDr la'kks/ku dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA izfroknhx.k dks mijksDr la'kks/ku izfrokn i= nkf[ky djrs le; gh dj fn;k tkuk pkfg;s FksA bu fLFkfr;ksa esa la'kks/ku izkFkZuk i= fujLr fd;k tkuk pkfg;sA leFkZu esa izi= la[;k&175&x@2 'kiFki= izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA eSaus la'kks/ku izkFkZuk&i= ij mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k ds rdksZa dks lquk rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k la'kks/ku izkFkZuk&i= Lohdkj djus ij oknh dh izd`fr esa dksbZ ifjorZu ugha gksxkA okn dkQh iqjkuk gSA bl fLFkfr esa la'kks/ku izkFkZuk i= gtsZ ij Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; gSA 161&, 1 la'kks/ku izkFkZuk i= : 0 700@& gtsZ ij Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA izfroknhx.k rhu fnol esa la'kks/ku djsa 23-11-2010 fu;r gksA "Under Order 6, Rule 17 read with 151 CPC, amendment application (No. 161A 1) has been submitted on behalf of the defendants 1, 2/1, 2/3 and 3 for amendment in paras 12Aa, 12Ba, 12Sa, 12Ya, 12Ra and 12La of their written statement (No. 28A 1). In favour of the application for amendment, an affidavit has been filed jointly by Smt. Chandrakanta Sharma, Smt. Manjulata Sharma, Chandrashekhar Sharma and Jitendra Kumar alias Pintoo. Objection being paper No. 147C 2 has been submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs; wherein it is stated that the amendment application by the defendants has been submitted illegally, basing it on meaningless, false and wrong facts. In the suit, framing of issues as also deposition of the witnesses before the court is complete. In such a situation, there is no justification for amendment in the written statement. In the suit, framing of issues as also deposition of the witnesses before the court is complete. In such a situation, there is no justification for amendment in the written statement. The aforesaid amendment should have been made by the defendants right at the time of submitting written statement. In such circumstances, the amendment application ought to be rejected. In support, document being paper no. 175C 2 has been submitted. I heard the arguments of learned counsels of both the parties on amendment application and perused papers on record. Accepting the amendment application shall not alter the nature of the suit. The suit is very longstanding. In such a situation, the amendment application is fit to be allowed with cost. Amendment application (161A 1) is allowed with the cost of Rs. 700/-. The defendant shall go in for the amendment in three days. The case be posted for 23.11.2010". (English translation by Court) 7. It does not show that the Court below has at all advanced requirement under Order 6, Rule 17 proviso and in a cursory and illegal manner has allowed the amendment at the stage of hearing when evidence of parties was already over by simply observing that it will not effect the nature of suit ignoring the fact that amendment is sought in the written statement, the question of changing of nature of suit does not rise at all. The order impugned in the revision obviously is illegal and cannot be sustained. 8. A bare perusal of above Rule 17 would show that an amendment is permissible by the Court at any stage of proceedings, of course, in such manner and in such terms as the Court may find just, but, such an amendment is required to be necessary for the purpose of determining real question in controversy between the parties. It gives very wide power to the Court for allowing amendment but the proviso added therein restricts such wide power simultaneously by observing that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the Trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite due diligence, party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of Trial. Now there is an embargo on an application for amendment to be allowed once the Trial has commenced. The embargo is complete. Now there is an embargo on an application for amendment to be allowed once the Trial has commenced. The embargo is complete. The only scope, thereafter is that the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence such matter could not have been raised by the parties concerned before the commencement of Trial. Therefore the party seeking amendment, after commencement of Trial, is bound to first plead and then prove that the amendment it has sought could not have been pleaded by it before commencement of Trial despite its due diligence. After the Trial has commenced, an amendment cannot be sought and allowed as a matter of course unless conditions of due diligence is found to have existed therein since it is prohibited by proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. 9. The Apex Court in Ajendraprasadji N. Pande v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. AIR 2007 SC 806 . has held that Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. as amended by Amendment Act, 2002 does not permit an amendment once the Trial has commenced unless despite due diligence, matter could not be raised before the commencement of Trial. The Court held that provision is mandatory and precludes a party to seek amendment of his pleadings once the Trial has commenced unless the requirement of proviso itself is satisfied. In taking this view, the Apex Court also referred to and relied on its earlier decision in Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3353 . 10. To the same extent, is the view taken by this Court in Rajkumar Gurawara v. M/s. S.K. Sarwagi and Co. Pvt. Ltd. AIR 2008 SC 2303 and Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and sons and others 2009 (1) SCC 84. This Court has also followed the above exposition of law by referring to Revajeetu Builders and Developers (supra) in Sri. Krishan Mittal v. Upper District Judge C.N. 10 Bijnor and others (Writ A No. 46709 of 2012) decided on 13.9.2012. 11. In the present case, from a bare perusal of application dated 15.11.2010 moved by defendant, it cannot be said that they have given any explanation as to why amendment sought could not have been done earlier despite due diligence on their part and why the documents sought to be placed on record subsequently could not be placed earlier. 11. In the present case, from a bare perusal of application dated 15.11.2010 moved by defendant, it cannot be said that they have given any explanation as to why amendment sought could not have been done earlier despite due diligence on their part and why the documents sought to be placed on record subsequently could not be placed earlier. Virtually, there is no explanation whatsoever in the application except the fact that amendment would be necessary for doing justice between the parties. It, therefore, cannot be said that there is compliance of proviso of Order 6 Rules 17 C.P.C. 12. In view of above discussion, writ petition deserves to succeed and is, accordingly, allowed. Impugned order dated 15.11.2010 is hereby quashed. 13. Trial Court is directed to decide S.C.C. Suit No. 530 of 2003 expeditiously, and, in any case, within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Petition allowed.