ORDER 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of defendants is directed against the order dated 7.4.2016 passed in Civil Suit No.2-A/2014; whereby, the trial Court has allowed the application under Order 6 rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 preferred by respondent No.1/plaintiff. 2. The application has been allowed on the following finding : ^^iz'uxr izdj.k esa oknh us vius vkosnu esa ;g Li"V fd;k gS fd Qhrh ukekarj.k fd;s tkus ds vkosnu ds i'pkr~ tc jktLo fujh{kd LFky fujh{k.k ds fy, x;k gqvk Fkk rc mls Kkr gqvk fd izfroknh Øekad 6 us vius ifr ds lg;ksx ls [kqys Hkw&[kaM ij Hkou fuekZ.k dk Hkh dk;Z djk fy;k gSA oknh us vius vkosnu esa ;g izdV fd;k gS fd mDr ?kVuk i'pkr~orhZ gSA ftlds ckjs esa izfroknhx.k us dksbZ Hkh Li"V [kaMu ugha fd;k gS oSls Hkh i'okr~orhZ ?kVukØe ds vk/kkj ij fd, x, la'kks/ku ds le; lR;rk vkSj xq.knks"k ij fopkj ugha djuk pkfg,A oknh }kjk vkf/kiR; okilh dk lgk;rk Hkh pkgh xbZ tks fd oknh }kjk iwoZ esa Hkh mBkbZ tk ldrh FkhA^^ 3. Taking exception to the finding recorded by the trial Court it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that besides the fact that the amendment was sought after commencement of trial without tendering any explanation as is required under proviso to rule 17 Order 6, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The trial Court has also misdirected itself in recording a finding that the amendment which has been sought relates to subsequent developments during pendency of civil suit. It is contended that the fact with regard to construction of a building over the plot in question the petitioner/defendant has already made an averment to that effect in paragraph 7 of the written statement to the following effect : ^^blh dkj.k izfroknh Øa 6 us mDr oknxzLr edku ,oa Hkwfe dks fof/kor nks i`Fkd i`Fkd iath;r foØ; i= ds ek/;e ls fnukad 10-12-2010 ,oa 21-3-2012 dks Ø; dj vkf/kiR; izkIr fd;k gS rFkk foØ; i= ds vk/kkj ij Lo;a ds uke ukekarj.k djk;k rRi'pkr~ fof/kor Hkou fuekZ.k vuqKk izkIr dj Hkou fuekZ.k dk;Z izkjaHk fd;kA^^ 4. The impugned order when is tested on the anvil of the submissions made by the petitioner cannot be given stamp of approval. 5. The impugned order when is tested on the anvil of the submissions made by the petitioner cannot be given stamp of approval. 5. Proviso to rule 17 of Order 6 stipulates : “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. 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. 7. 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.” 8. Recently 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. 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. 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." 9. The impugned order when adjudged on the principle of law laid down in Vidya Bai (supra) and J. Sammuel (supra), cannot be given the stamp of approval. 10. Consequently the impugned order is set aside. Petition is allowed to the extent above. There shall be no costs. Ravi Dwivedi for petitioners; Ms. Kishwar Khan for respondent No.1; Mrs. Janhvi Pandit, Government Advocate for respondent/State.