ORDER : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following reliefs :- "1. That the impugned order dated 05.10.2016 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (J.D) Merta, in Civil Original No.235/2015 titled Manju Lata v. Prahlad & Ors. may kindly be set aside. Application (Annexure-5) filed in the matter may kindly be allowed as a whole. 2. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. 3. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petition is seeking amendment in the suit as he is entitled for the easementary rights and unless the prayer is expanded the complete relief to the petitioner shall not be available. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the submissions with a categorical argument that the petitioner was supposed to exercise due diligence as the facts regarding easement were known to the family since last 200 years and the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC at this stage. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Meera Ben (Smt.) v. Amritlal & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1669/2015), decided on 18.02.2015. The relevant portion of this judgment reads as under :- "From the above averments it is apparent that the petitioner has failed to indicate any reason whatsoever necessitating filing of the amendment application as required by proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 CPC. The provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 CPC read as under: "17. The relevant portion of this judgment reads as under :- "From the above averments it is apparent that the petitioner has failed to indicate any reason whatsoever necessitating filing of the amendment application as required by proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 CPC. The provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 CPC read 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." Under the proviso, an application seeking amendment after the trial has commenced cannot be allowed 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; for attracting the said provision, the minimum requirement in an application under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint after commencement of trial is that the applicant has to make out a case that despite due diligence the matter could not be raised before the commencement of the trial; however, in the present case, not a word has been indicated by the plaintiff in this regard. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyabai & Ors. v. Padmalatha & Anr. : (2009) 2 SCC 409 while dealing with the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 CPC observed as under:- "10. ...............It is couched in a mandatory form. The court's jurisdiction to allow such an application is taken away unless the conditions precedent therefore are satisfied viz. it must come to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. 11. From the order passed by the learned trial Judge, it is evident that the respondents had not been able to fulfill the said precondition. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is as to whether the trial had commenced or not. In our opinion, it did. 11. From the order passed by the learned trial Judge, it is evident that the respondents had not been able to fulfill the said precondition. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration is as to whether the trial had commenced or not. In our opinion, it did. The date on which the issues are framed is the date of first hearing. Provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure envisage taking of various steps at different stages of the proceeding. Filing of an affidavit in lie of examination-in-chief of the witnesses, in our opinion, would amount to "commencement of proceeding". 15. ...............The ratio in Kailash was reiterated stating that the trial is deemed to commence when the issues are settled and the case is set down for recording of evidence. 19. It is the primal duty of the court to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. Only if such a condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to be allowed. However, proviso appended to Order 6 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." Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly laid down that the proviso was mandatory; the jurisdiction to allow amendment is taken away unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial; the proviso restricts the power of the Court and unless the jurisdictional fact i.e. the aspect pertaining to due diligence is found to be existing, the Court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment of the plaint. It was further laid down with reference to various judgments that filing of an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief of the witness would amount to commencement of proceeding and the trial is deemed to commence when the issues are framed and the case is set down for recording of evidence. As to what is meant by due diligence, the same has been explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in J. Samuel & Ors. v. Gatuu Mahesh & Ors. As to what is meant by due diligence, the same has been explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in J. Samuel & Ors. v. Gatuu Mahesh & Ors. : (2012) 2 SCC 300 as under:- "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. 20. A party requesting a relief stemming out of a claim is required to exercise due diligence and it is a requirement which cannot be dispensed with. The term "due diligence" determines the scope of a party's constructive knowledge, claim and is very critical to the outcome of the suit." From the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vidyabai (supra) and J. Samuel (supra), it is apparent that in the present case the trial has already commenced and, therefore, it was incumbent on the petitioner to make out a case that in spite of due diligence the matter could not be raised before the commencement of trial; as already noticed hereinbefore, not a word has been indicated in the application in this regard and, therefore, jurisdictional fact for invoking provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 CPC have not been alleged in the application and, therefore, the trial court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. So far as the judgment in the case of Baldev Singh (supra) relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidyabai (supra) noticed the judgment and the paragraph relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner and observed as under:- "16. Reliance, however, has been placed by Ms Suri on Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh wherein it was opined: "17. Before we part with this order, we may also notice that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC provides that amendment of pleadings shall not be allowed when the trial of the suit has already commenced. Reliance, however, has been placed by Ms Suri on Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh wherein it was opined: "17. Before we part with this order, we may also notice that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC provides that amendment of pleadings shall not be allowed when the trial of the suit has already commenced. For this reason, we have examined the records and find that, it fact, the trial has not yet commenced. It appears from the records that the parties have yet to file their documentary evidence in the suit. From the record, it also appears that the suit was not on the verge of conclusion as found by the High Court and the trial court. That apart, commencement of trial as used in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 in the Code of Civil Procedure must be understood in the limited sense as mending the final hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of arguments. As noted hereinbefore, parties are yet to file their documents, we do not find any reason to reject the application for amendment of the written statement in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which confers wide power and unfettered discretion on the court to allow an amendment of the written statement at any stage of the proceedings." It is not an authority for the proposition that the trial would not be deemed to have commenced on the date of first hearing. In that case, as noticed hereinbefore, the documents were yet to be filed and, therefore, it was held that the trial did not commence." 5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case as well as precedent law, this Court is of the opinion that the facts which were already available to the petitioner plaintiff at the time of filing of suit required his due diligence before filing the suit and once in his own wisdom, he is chosen to file his suit then any amendment without showing the cause as to how after due diligence he could not frame the amendment in the suit as being sought by him. Therefore, no cause of interference is made out in the present petition and the same is dismissed. Therefore, no cause of interference is made out in the present petition and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall always have a liberty to file a separate suit for the extended relief which he wants to claim by invoking the Order 6 Rule 17 strictly in accordance with law.