ORDER : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. Supplementary affidavit dated 13.11.2017 is taken on record. 2. Be tagged at its proper place. 3. When the suit was posted for final hearing, an application for amendment in the plaint was filed, which has been declined vide order dated 24.05.2017. This is the order under challenge in the writ petition. 4. Title Suit No. 82 of 2009 was instituted by Aditya Prasad Sao @ Aditya Prasad Sah seeking a declaration of his right, title and interest over the Schedule-A property. The plaintiff has pleaded that about 0.07 acres land in plot No. 614 within khata No. 320 situated in village-Bishnugarh, District-Hazaribagh was recorded in the name of Laxmi Prasad and others. In the last cadestral survey after death of Ramjee Sao and Bharat Sah, Laxmi Prasad Sao and Mahendra Prasad who were recorded raiyats sold Schedule-A land through their natural grand-mother Anar Kuwari to the plaintiff through registered sale deed dated 27.01.1973. The plaintiff has claimed possession over the suit property by virtue of the aforesaid sale deed. The defendants contested the suit, pleading that defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 had already conveyed about 4 decimals land in plot No. 614 and 1 decimal in plot No. 613 vide sale deed dated 12.11.1969. Trial of the suit proceeded and parties led their evidence and when argument on behalf of defendant No. 1 was closed and matter was fixed for plaintiff's argument, application dated 16.02.2017 was filed for amendment in the plaint for incorporating the following paragraphs: (A) That after the end of sub-para (a) of para 9 of the plaint, the following be added as para (aa) - “(aa) That it be declared that the sale deed No. 15320 of the year 1969 dated 12.11.1969 executed by defendant No. 2 for self and on behalf of the defendant nos. 3 and 4 in favour of Babulal Sao and the sale-deed No. 766 dated 02.02.09 executed by Govind Lal and others in favour of Jugal Swarnkar are illegal, inoperative, collusive, void and not binding upon the plaintiff. 3 and 4 in favour of Babulal Sao and the sale-deed No. 766 dated 02.02.09 executed by Govind Lal and others in favour of Jugal Swarnkar are illegal, inoperative, collusive, void and not binding upon the plaintiff. (B) That after the end of para 5 of the plaint, the following be added as new para 5(a) as follows:— “It is submitted that during the life time of defendant No. 4 who was the natural guardian of minor defendant Mahadeo Sao, the defendant No. 2 had no right to execute sale-deed No. 15320 on 12.11.1969 in favor of Babulal Sao nor on the basis of the said sale-deed Babulal Sao ever came in possession over the land. As the sale deed was an illegal, collusive, transferred as such, never acted upon, nor the Govt. had ever issued rent receipt in the name of Babulal Sao. It is further submitted that the sale deed executed by sons of Babulal Sao is nothing get a bag of wind because neither Babulal Sao had ever acquired any right, title, interest or possession over the land nor their sons and as such, the sale-deed No. 76 dated 05.02.09 is also an illegal, void, collusive and both the sale-deeds are not binding upon the plaintiffs” (C) That after the name and address of the Defendant No. 4, the following be added as Defendant nos. 5 to 8. “5. Govind Lal 6. Rajendra Lal 7. Rambilash Prasad 8. Sanjeet Kumar Sons of Late Babulal Sao All residents of village and PS-Bishungarh, District-Hazaribagh 5. Contending that during trial of Title Suit No. 82 of 2009 the witnesses on both sides have spoken about sale deed dated 12.11.1969 and the sale deed is already on record, Mr. Ayush Aditya, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proposed amendments are necessitated in view of the facts disclosed by the defendants in their written statement. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that, if the proposed amendments are not allowed and further prayer seeking a declaration on legality of the sale deed dated 12.11.1969 is not permitted, even if the suit is decreed, the judgment passed cannot be given effect to and, in fact, it may lead to complications at the appellate stage. 6. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that, if the proposed amendments are not allowed and further prayer seeking a declaration on legality of the sale deed dated 12.11.1969 is not permitted, even if the suit is decreed, the judgment passed cannot be given effect to and, in fact, it may lead to complications at the appellate stage. 6. Referring to proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the proposed amendments have rightly been declined, for the plaintiff has failed to disclose, why after it was disclosed in the written statement that a part of schedule property has already been conveyed through sale deed dated 12.11.1969 they did not take any step for amending the plaint. 7. Rule 17 to Order VI CPC provides that amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceeding in a suit, however, this provision is restricted by proviso to Rule 17. Under the proviso, a statutory limitation has been put on Rule 17, whereunder it is provided that no amendment in the pleadings shall be allowed if trial in the suit has commenced. It is well-settled that proviso to Rule 17 Order VI CPC is mandatory. It is also well-settled that amendment in the pleadings can be permitted after the trial in a suit has commenced provided, the Court records a finding that inspite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the trial in the suit commenced. It is not in dispute that the defendants specifically pleaded in their written statement that before execution of sale deed dated 27.01.1973 under which the plaintiff is claiming right, title and interest, a part of suit property was conveyed through sale deed dated 12.11.1969. Obviously, no issue on the validity of sale deed dated 12.11.1969 could have framed during the trial of the suit, for the parties were not at variance on this issue. A perusal of application dated 16.02.2017 would disclose that only ground taken by the plaintiff why the proposed amendments were not incorporated in the plaint is that, at the stage of arguments this defect was noticed by his counsel. In the above facts, the plaintiff has definitely not crossed the hurdle under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. A perusal of application dated 16.02.2017 would disclose that only ground taken by the plaintiff why the proposed amendments were not incorporated in the plaint is that, at the stage of arguments this defect was noticed by his counsel. In the above facts, the plaintiff has definitely not crossed the hurdle under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff that if the proposed amendments are allowed, no oral evidence is required to be laid, is misconceived. If the proposed amendments are allowed, the entire matter would be at large and the suit would be wide open. This would necessitate framing of an issue on validity of sale deed dated 12.11.1969. It is not understanding of the parties to a suit by which proceeding in a suit would be guided rather, it is the provision under Code of Civil Procedure which would regulate the proceeding in the suit. If the proposed amendments are allowed, it would lead to re-trial in the suit at the instance of the plaintiffs. 8. In the above facts, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 24.05.2017 and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.