JUDGMENT : Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the impugned order dated 20.7.2015 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 20, Jaipur Metropolitan, Headquarter at Chomu in Civil Suit No. 10/2014 titled as Rameshwar v. Kanti Chand Sharma and Others, whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the application dated 19.2.2014 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Skeletal material facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner filed a civil suit for specific performance on 19.2.2007 against the defendant-respondents, which is pending before the learned trial Court. The plaintiff-petitioner averred in the plaint that defendant No. 2 has sold the disputed land to the defendant No. 3 on 30.12.2006 and the defendant No. 3 also sold the disputed land to the defendant No. 4 on 8.1.2007. The defendants filed their written statement denying material averments made in the plaint. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed issues on 5.10.2010 and fixed the case for plaintiff's evidence. The case of the plaintiff is that while preparing affidavits of the plaintiff and witnesses, it came to his knowledge that the required relief has been left out inadvertently and, therefore, the application for amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC was filed with a prayer to add Para No. 15 (3) in the prayer clause of the plaint, which reads ad infra : ^^iSjk la[;k 15@3& izfroknh la[;k 1 ds }kjk vius iq= o eq[R;kjvke ds ek/;e ls izfroknh la[;k 3 ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr foØ; i= fnuakd 30-12-2006 ds vk/kkj ij izfroknh la[;k 4 ds i{k esa fu"ikfnr foØ; i= fnuakd 08-01-2007 dks 'kwU; ?kksf"kr fd;k tkos o fujLr fd;k tkosA** 4. It is also an admitted fact that after framing of issues, affidavit of the plaintiff was filed on 7.10.2010, therefore, the reason assigned by the petitioner for filing the application for amendment on 19.2.2014 at belated stage, is not convincing. 5. Provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of pleadings are as under: "17. It is also an admitted fact that after framing of issues, affidavit of the plaintiff was filed on 7.10.2010, therefore, the reason assigned by the petitioner for filing the application for amendment on 19.2.2014 at belated stage, is not convincing. 5. Provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of pleadings are 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 view of discussions made above, there is no material on record to suggest that inspite of due diligence the plaintiff-petitioner could not raise the matter before the commencement of trial, so as to allow the application for amendment sought by the plaintiff/petitioner. 7. On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner and having regard to the material made available on record and more particularly looking to the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court in support of the impugned order and the pleadings taken by the petitioner in the plaint, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC. 8. Consequently, the petition being meritless, is hereby dismissed. 9. In view of the above order, the stay application also stands dismissed.