JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. Heard Shri Ashok Shankar Bhatnagar for the revisionists and Shri Rajeev Mishra for the opposite party. 2. This revision has been filed against the order dated 15.10.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Bulandshahr in S.C.C. Suit No. 27 of 2013, whereby an application for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is a Bank having a currency chest. Permission was sought from the Reserve Bank of India to merge this currency chest with the currency chest in Yamunapura Branch of the Bank in Bulandshahr, which permission was refused by the Reserve Bank of India. It is on account of this refusal that the amendment application was filed seeking to incorporate in the written statement that the Bank is a Nationalized Bank operating under the directions of the Reserve Bank of India and that the Civil Lines Branch of the Bank has a currency chest, which cannot be shifted, except with the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. 4. The application also sought to incorporate that the Reserve Bank of India was a necessary party in the proceedings. 5. It is submitted that the amendment was merely clarificatory in nature. It did not take the opposite party by surprise and did not cause any prejudice to them. Moreover, it was an amendment which could have been allowed by imposing costs to compensate the plaintiff. It was lastly submitted that an amendment of a written statement has to be liberally construed viz a viz an amendment of the plaint. 6. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment in the case of State of U.P. And Others Vs. Ashok Kumar And Others, 2014 (8) ADJ 251 and Satya Dev-Shakuntla Devi Educational Trust, Etawah Vs. Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Etawah And Others, 2014 (6) ADJ 378 . 7. Shri Rajeev Mishra counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that final arguments in the SCC suit were advanced on 23.08.2016 and 20.09.2016 was fixed for delivery of judgment. On 19.09.2016 some additional documents were filed by the revisionist whereupon the Court fixed 22.09.2016 for arguments. On this date an adjournment was sought and 26.09.2016 was fixed as the next date. In the meantime, on 24.09.2016, the amendment application was filed. 8. On 19.09.2016 some additional documents were filed by the revisionist whereupon the Court fixed 22.09.2016 for arguments. On this date an adjournment was sought and 26.09.2016 was fixed as the next date. In the meantime, on 24.09.2016, the amendment application was filed. 8. It is submitted that this amendment application having been filed for the conclusion of final arguments, was clearly not maintainable, in view of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which provides that an amendment application cannot be allowed once the trial has commenced. 9. Counsel for the opposite parties has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajendraprasadji N. Pande & Anr. Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & Ors., AIR 2006 Gujarat 204. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record as also the judgments cited by them. 11. The court below has rejected the amendment application on the ground that it has been filed after the trial had commenced and, therefore, it could not be allowed in view of the bar created by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 12. It is not disputed by counsel for the revisionist that the currency chest, in the revisionist Bank, has been in existence since before the suit was instituted. Since, this fact was within the knowledge of the Bank, I do not see any justification why the amendment filed after conclusion of final arguments should be allowed. 13. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that at any stage of the proceedings, such amendment of the pleadings can be allowed, as may be necessary, for determining the real controversy between the parties. The proviso however, provides that no application for amendment should 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 commencement of the trial. 14. As noticed above, the facts sought to be incorporated by means of the amendment application were within the knowledge of the revisionist Bank from prior to the institution of the suit itself and, therefore, this court finds that there is no question of this fact not being within the knowledge of the revisionist Bank despite due diligence. The facts and circumstances are in fact, quite to the contrary. 15. The facts and circumstances are in fact, quite to the contrary. 15. Besides for allowing an amendment application, it must be shown that such amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. 16. In my considered opinion, the existence of a currency chest in the Bank is wholly irrelevant in a suit for arrears of rent, damages and eviction. Its existence in the Bank cannot save the revisionist from being evicted, if the revisionist is found liable to be evicted on any of the grounds that may have been raised in the suit, be it on the ground of arrears of rent or on the ground that the tenancy stood terminated either by a valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act or by efflux of time. 17. Since this Court is of the opinion that the amendment sought was wholly irrelevant for the purposes of deciding the controversy between the parties to the suit, the submission that the amendment could have been allowed, subject to payment of costs or that an amendment of a written statement is to be construed liberally, are submissions which require no consideration being wholly academic in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Moreover, in the above back drop, the amendment application filed by the defendant, appears to be a largely, dilatory. 18. Accordingly, this Court founds that the impugned order suffers from no jurisdictional error. The revision is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.