JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside of order dated 07.09.2017 (Annexure P-6), passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No. II, Amb, District Una, H.P, vide which, learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the present petitioner/ plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment in the plaint. 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that predecessor in interest of the present petitioner/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as ‘original plaintiff’) filed a suit for declaration before the learned trial Court to the effect that the suit land was owned and possessed by him and defendant had no right, title and interest over the same and also for cancellation of sale deeds No. 2221 and 2222, dated 29.10.2010, which as per original plaintiff, was got executed by defendant by way of misrepresentation/ fraud being sham transaction and further did not confer any right and title upon the defendant. 3. The suit so filed by the original plaintiff was resisted by respondent/defendant, who, inter alia took the stand that the sale deeds were, in fact, legally executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant and the same were not a result of any coercion or duress as alleged. The claim of the plaintiff that defendant had neither paid any sale consideration to the plaintiff, nor plaintiff intended to sell the suit land in favour of the defendant, also stood rebutted in the written statement. The stand of the defendant in the written statement inter alia was that on account of strained relations of the original plaintiff with his son( i.e. the present petitioner) and daughter-in-law, the original plaintiff, in fact, on more than one occasion, offered the land to the defendant free of cost for religious and charitable purposes but this was not agreed to by the defendant, and ultimately, when the land was purchased by the defendant, it was in lieu of consideration. 4. 4. In the replication, the factum of the original plaintiff having strained relations with his son (i.e. the present petitioner) and daughter-in-law, in fact, stood admitted and it was also stated in the replication that it was not disputed that son and daughter-in-law of the plaintiff wanted to forcibly oust the original plaintiff and grab his property. 5. It is a matter of record that original plaintiff, Sh. Agya Ram died during the pendency of the suit and Sh. Ganesh Dutt, i.e. his son, was substituted as his legal representative. 6. After the substitution of Sh. Ganesh Dutt as plaintiff in place of deceased-Agya Ram, an application was filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the plaintiff (Ganesh Dutt) for amendment of the plaint whereby plaintiff proposed to incorporate para 7(a) in the plaint, which reads as under:- “7-A. That the deceased plaintiff at the twilight of his life and upon realisation of the illegal act committed by the defendant, taking advantage of the old age, religious belief and in order to procure highly valuable property and further in order to render legal and genuine colour to the alleged sale consideration had also opened the Bank account at P.N.B. Branch Bharwain in which the defendant himself introduced as witness and further in connivance with the Bank authority had also procured Fixed Deposit Receipt, wherein the defendant get nominated his name as nominee and have also on the same date got procured an affidavit in favour of said Mohinder Singh regarding the other Bank Fixed Deposited Receipts and other saving accounts duly attested by the Notary Public at Amb. It is pertinent to state here that, the deceased plaintiff at that time had not borrowed any sum/money from any body, neither the plaintiff has under gone any major medical treatment. Furthermore, the defendant in order to galvanise the illegal transaction of sales had also got withdrawn a sum of Rs. 2 Lac. It is impossible to under stand this fact that the deceased plaintiff is the permanent resident of Village Kalruhi and already having his Saving Bank Account at Punjab National Bank, Branch Amb, which is nearby his Village Kalruhi at the distance of 2 Kilometer only. Then why he would cause in-convenience to himself for opening the Bank Account at Bharwain which is more than 25 Kilometers away from his village. Then why he would cause in-convenience to himself for opening the Bank Account at Bharwain which is more than 25 Kilometers away from his village. The plaintiff was having shallow knowledge qua the preparation of documents pertaining to the transaction of land. The entire preparation of the illegal documents for effecting the fictitious sale deeds has been manipulated by defendant who intends to grab the highly valuable property for a paltry sum. It is pertinent to mention here even at that time the market value of the suit property alongwith residential building was more than 50 Lacs and adjoining to the Link Road. Even in the affidavit dated 29.10.2010 duly attested by the Notary Public Amb, the value of the Sale Transaction is contrary to the alleged Sale Deeds which already establish the fact that the transaction and preparation of the false documents have been carried out under undue influence and upon the domination of the will of the deceased plaintiff by the defendant.” 7. The reasons given in the application as to why the proposed amendment could not be incorporated in the original suit itself was that deceased plaintiff Agya Ram, being grief stricken during last days of his life, narrated the real facts to the present plaintiff and when he got impleaded as a legal representative of deceased-plaintiff, he consulted his Counsel and found that crucial and material facts could not be incorporated in the plaint on account of old age of the original plaintiff. 8. Reply to the application was filed by the defendant who opposed the said application. 9. Vide order dated 07.09.2017, learned Court below rejected the application so filed for permission to amend the plaint. Learned trail Court while dismissing the application held that plaintiff had not taken care to seek amendment in the pleadings since the year 2011 till the filing of the application and the same was nothing but sheer negligence on the part of the plaintiff. It further held that proposed amendments were not explanatory in nature and nor were they sequential to original facts. It further held that proposed amendments were not explanatory in nature and nor were they sequential to original facts. Learned trial Court held that in fact by way of proposed amendment, inconsistent plea was sought to be taken because in the original suit, the stand of the original plaintiff was that no sale consideration was given to him but now applicant/plaintiff wanted to amend and incorporate the fact that a Bank account was opened by plaintiff at P.N.B. Branch Bharwain and further defendant in connivance with bank authority also procured fixed deposit receipt in favour of original plaintiff. Learned Court also held that applicant had failed to show reasonable and plausible reason as to why in spite of due diligence, the matter could not be raised earlier. Learned Court below also held that whereas it was mentioned in the application that the proposed amendment was based on instructions which were imparted to the applicant by the original plaintiff in the last stage of his life and record revealed that Agya Ram i.e. original plaintiff had died on 14.1.2014, whereas the application for amendment was filed on 29.7.2015 after lapse of more than 1 ½ years. On these grounds, learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint by holding that there was no reasonable or plausible ground pleaded by the plaintiff to allow such amendment. 10. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this petition. 11. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order as well as the pleadings of the respective parties. 12. It is not in dispute that the original suit was filed in the year 2011. It is also not in dispute that original plaintiff died on 14.1.2014. It is also not in dispute that the application for amendment of the plaint was filed by newly impleaded plaintiff i.e. Ganesh Dutt, son of late Sh. Agya Ram, on 29.7.2015. 12. It is not in dispute that the original suit was filed in the year 2011. It is also not in dispute that original plaintiff died on 14.1.2014. It is also not in dispute that the application for amendment of the plaint was filed by newly impleaded plaintiff i.e. Ganesh Dutt, son of late Sh. Agya Ram, on 29.7.2015. Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code provides as under:- “the Court may at any stage at 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 trail 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.” 13. This provision confers power upon the Court to allow such amendment in the pleadings as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. However, proviso thereto mentions that no application for amendment shall be allowed after trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. 14. Now in the present case, suit was filed by Shri Agya Ram seeking inter alia declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit property and the sale deeds which stood executed qua the suit property between him and the defendant was a result of fraud/misrepresentation and that the same was not binding upon the plaintiff and mutation attested on the basis of said sale deeds was also not binding upon the plaintiff. 15. Defendant’s case was that the sale deed was duly executed by plaintiff in his favour in lieu of consideration and in fact, it was on account of strained relations which original plaintiff had with his son and daughter-in-law that earlier he had asked the defendant to have the property transferred in the name of defendant without any consideration but the same was not agreed to by the defendant and ultimately the property was purchased by defendant in lieu of consideration. 16. 16. As I have already mentioned above, in the replication, the factum of plaintiff having strained relations with his son and daughter-in-law stands admitted. Relevant portion of reply (para 8 thereof) is quoted herein-below:- “8……. It is not disputed that the son and daughter-in-law of the plaintiff wanted to forcibly oust the plaintiff and grab his property and the …… defendant in order to suppressed their own wrong illegal acts had levelled false, frivolous, unfounded, baseless allegation against the plaintiff.” 17. Now the application for amendment of the plaint was not filed by the original plaintiff. It was after his death when his son, Ganesh Dutt, who is present petitioner, entered into his foot steps that he moved an application praying for amendment of the plaint. The reasons given in the application as to what led to the filing of the application are that original plaintiff in the last days of his life, out of grief, narrated the true facts of the applicant, who after consulting his Counsel found that crucial and material facts were left out and not incorporated in the plaint. Incidentally, what prevented a proper application in this regard to be filed in the Court during the life time of the original plaintiff, has not been mentioned in the application. Further why there was a delay of 1 ½ years in filing the application by the present petitioner from the date of death of the original plaintiff has neither been explained in the application, nor the same could be explained by learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments. The only inference which could be drawn from the above discussion is that it cannot be said that it was in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial which it intended to incorporate by way of the proposed amendment. The only inference which could be drawn from the above discussion is that it cannot be said that it was in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial which it intended to incorporate by way of the proposed amendment. A perusal of the proposed amendment also demonstrates that whereas the stand of the original plaintiff in the suit was that the transaction between the plaintiff and defendant was sham transaction as the same was without any consideration, in the proposed amendment, it was intended to be incorporated that an account in the name of original plaintiff was opened at P.N.B. Bharwain at the behest of the defendant wherein certain amounts were deposited in the name of original plaintiff so as to demonstrate that the sale deeds were in lieu of consideration. Now, obviously the proposed amendment is a clear departure from the stand which was taken by the original plaintiff and the same but obvious is nothing but an after thought. The proposed amendments are not for incorporating facts subsequent to the filing of plaint but is an attempt to fill up lacunae. Besides this, a perusal of order passed by the learned trial Court demonstrates that the said order is a reasoned order. Learned trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiff had not made out a case for allowing application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The findings returned by the learned trial Court are borne out from the records and the same are not perverse. Therefore also, as no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the learned trial Court while passing the said order and further as the findings returned in the order impugned are duly borne out from the records of the case, therefore also, the same does not warrant any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of above, as there is no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.