ORDER 1. Petitioner-defendant after commencement of trial and without tendering the explanation as warranted vide proviso to rule 17 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 sought incorporation of the facts relating to unstamped and unregistered alleged agreement of sale dated 18.4.2007, the trial Court which is in seisin with the suit for eviction rejected the application on the touchstone of the proviso to rule 17 Order 6 CPC , which when tested on the anvil thereof cannot be faulted with. Proviso to rule 17 Order 6 of CPC envisages : “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.” 2. True it is that at any stage an amendment can be sought to bring on record and elucidate the facts as would help the Courts to arrive at a just decision, and the Courts generally should be liberal in considering such applications. The parameter however, changes when an amendment in pleading is sought after the trial has commenced. In that case the Court dwelling upon such application has to satisfy itself that despite of exercising of due diligence the party which seeks an amendment could not bring the facts on record at the time of filing the suit or written statement, as the case may be. 3. In Vidya Bai and others v. Padamlatha [ AIR 2009 SC 1433 ], it has been held : “19. ... However, proviso appended to Order VI, rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the Court. It puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction. The Court's jurisdiction, in a case of this nature is limited. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found to be existing, the Court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment of the plaint.” 4. Recently in In J. Sammuel and others v. Gattu Mahesh and others [ (2012)2 SCC 300 ], it is observed by their Lordships : “18. ... The Court’s discretion to grant permission for a party to amend his pleading lies on two conditions, firstly, no injustice must be done to the other side and secondly, the amendment must be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. ... The Court’s discretion to grant permission for a party to amend his pleading lies on two conditions, firstly, no injustice must be done to the other side and secondly, the amendment must be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. However to balance the interests of the parties in pursuit of doing justice, the proviso has been added which clearly states 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.” 19. Due diligence is the idea that reasonable investigation is necessary before certain kinds of relief are requested. Duly diligent efforts are a requirement for a party seeking to use the adjudicatory mechanism to attain an anticipated relief. An advocate representing someone must engage in due diligence to determine that the representations made are factually accurate and sufficient. The term ‘Due diligence’ is specifically used in the Code so as to provide a test for determining whether to exercise the discretion in situations of requested amendment after the commencement of trial.” 5. Reliance placed on the decision in Rampal v. Babulal and others [ 2013(2) MPLJ 147 ], is of no assistance to the petitioner in the given facts of present case. 6. Consequently petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. Mukhtar Ahmed for petitioner; R. P. Khare for respondent.