JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. - Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the order dated 27.10.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chachiot at Gohar District Mandi, H.P., H.P., whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C., praying therein for impleadment as well as amendment of plaint having been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (herein after referred to as "the plaintiff") came to be rejected, plaintiff has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis--vis impugned order passed by the court below, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the same, rather this Court finds that impugned order is based upon proper appreciation of facts as well as law and as such, same needs to be upheld. In the case at hand, application as referred herein above, came to be filed on behalf of the plaintiff on the ground that part of the claim of the applicant/plaintiff pertains to the adjoining government land, upon which the respondent has caused interference as is evident from the pleadings and evidence led on record. Plaintiff averred in the application that the State has been not arrayed as party and joining khasra No. 161/2 measuring 0-1-0 bigha, which is a part of khasra No. 161, measuring 6-5-5 situate in Muhal Dadhoun/394, Tehsil Thunag, District Mandi, H.P., has not been pleaded as suit land and as such, plaint having been filed by him needs to be amended and State of Himachal Pradesh being necessary and proper party, needs to be impleaded as party respondent. 3. Careful perusal of plaint (Annexure P-1), having been filed by the plaintiff suggests that plaintiff filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction under Sections 38 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act, wherein admittedly, he has not claimed any relief against Government of Himachal Pradesh, rather relief, if any, has been sought against the defendant, against whom, it has been specifically alleged that he has started unlawful interference by way of starting encroaching upon the suit land by extending his construction from the government land and as such, learned court below rightly arrived at a conclusion that State of Himachal Pradesh is not necessary and proper party as far as proper adjudication of the case at hand, is concerned. Admittedly dispute inter-se parties, is qua the suit land, which is not the government land. Otherwise also, record reveals that prior to filing the instant application, applicant-plaintiff had moved an application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, praying therein for withdrawal of suit, which was dismissed, whereafter an application for amendment and impleadment, which is subject matter of the present case came to be filed. 4. True, it is that, court at any stage of the proceedings, can allow either party to alter or amend his/her pleadings in such a manner as may be just and also such amendments as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real controversy between the parties, but no application for amendment shall be allowed after the commencement of trial unless the court comes to conclusion that in spite of due diligence, party failed to raise the matter before the commencement of the trial. 5. In the case at hand, learned court below, having gone through the record has recorded categorical finding that application at hand, came to be filed after the commencement of trial because admittedly application was filed when the matter was listed for final arguments and there is no plausible explanation rendered on record that why despite due diligence, applicant-plaintiff failed to move application well before the commencement of trial. 6. Reliance is placed upon Rameshkumar Agarwal vs. Rajmala Exports Private Limited and others , (2012) 5 SCC 337 , wherein the Hon''ble Apex Court has held as under:- "14. Order 6 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") makes it clear that every pleading shall contain only a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 makes it clear that every pleading shall be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively, each allegation being, so far as is convenient, contained in a separate paragraph. Sub- rule (3) of Rule 2 mandates that dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in a pleading in figures as well as in words. 15. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code enables the parties to make amendment of the plaint which reads as under; "17. Sub- rule (3) of Rule 2 mandates that dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in a pleading in figures as well as in words. 15. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code enables the parties to make amendment of the plaint which reads 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." 7. The Hon''ble Apex Court in Chakreshwari Construction Private Limited vs. Manohar Lal , (2017) 5 SCC 212 , has culled out certain principles while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment, which are as under:- "13. The principle applicable for deciding the application made for amendment in the pleadings remains no more res integra and is laid down in several cases. In Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy & Sons , (2009) 10 SCC 84 , this Cout, after examining the entire previous case law on the subject, culled out the following principle in para 63 of the judgment which reads as under: (SCC p.102) "63. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money. (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation. (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation. (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive." 8. If the facts of the present case are considered in the light of aforesaid parameters laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in judgment referred herein above, this Court is of the view that amendment sought by way of application made by the plaintiff is not imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case, rather application for amendment is not bona-fide, because same has been filed after rejection of the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 23 Rule 3 read with section 151 CPC, wherein prayer was made for withdrawal of the suit. Moreover, plaintiff has miserably failed to render on record plausible explanation that in spite of due diligence, he failed to move an application for amendment before commencement of trial and as such, application having been filed by him, at the time of final arguments, rightly came to be rejected by the court below. (See: Revajeetu Builders and Developers vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Others , (2009) 10 SCC 84 and Khushbir Singh vs. Gurdeep Singh and Others , (2016) 14 SCC 638). 9. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion as well as law cited herein above, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the court below and as such same is upheld. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.