JUDGMENT : Aggrieved of order dated 19.01.2012 passed in Title Suit No. 71 of 2002 by which application for amendment in the plaint has been declined, the plaintiff has approached this Court. 2. Title Suit No. 71 of 2002 was instituted by Ram Prasad Ram, who is father of the petitioner, for a decree of declaration of his right and title over the suit schedule properties. Sale deed no. 7339 dated 07.07.2001 executed by Govind Ram in favour of Lalita Devi and sale deed no. 7409 dated 07.07.2001 executed by the said Govind Ram in favour of Jaideo Ram were also challenged. The suit schedule properties were comprised under plot no. 485, khata no. 61 admeasuring about 0.41 acres. In the pending suit when evidence of the parties was closed and the suit was posted for final arguments, an application for amendment in the plaint, more particularly in paragraph nos. 9, 18, the schedule of lands and the prayer clause was filed on 14.11.2011. In the written statement the defendants have denied the claim of the plaintiff of his right, title and interest over the suit land. The defendants disputed that the plaintiff was in possession over the suit land. The plaintiff has pleaded that due to lack of knowledge and unavailability of certain documents initially it was not pleaded that 3 decimals land in plot no. 489 was also included in the lands transferred by Govind Ram. The plaintiff has also claimed that during pendency of the suit he was forcibly dispossessed from the suit land in the month of March, 2011 and the defendants constructed a house. 3. Mr. Raj Nandan Sahay, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner assailing legality of the impugned order dated 19.01.2012 contends that the trial court has committed a manifest error while rejecting application for amendment when it says that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit. In fact, the amendments in the plaint were necessitated on account of a subsequent development, i.e., forcible construction of house by the defendants over the suit land. 4. Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 provides that amendment in the pleadings shall not be permitted once trial of the suit has commenced, however, by now it is well settled that amendment in the pleadings can be permitted at any stage of the suit, even at the stage of final hearing. 4. Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 provides that amendment in the pleadings shall not be permitted once trial of the suit has commenced, however, by now it is well settled that amendment in the pleadings can be permitted at any stage of the suit, even at the stage of final hearing. The powers conferred upon the Court under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is founded on justice, equity and good conscience, however, this power cannot be exercised by the Courts to permit amendment in the pleadings if the proposed amendment would cause prejudice to the other party, or the amendment sought is a result of lack of due diligence and default on the part of the party seeking amendment. There is no dispute that the application for amendment was filed after the parties had closed their evidence and the suit was fixed for final arguments. In the application for amendment the plaintiff has not claimed that his witnesses have already deposed the facts which he intends to incorporate in the plaint through amendment. Evidently, the witnesses examined by the plaintiff would have deposed in support of the plaint averments. The plaintiff has failed to disclose the source through which he acquired knowledge about his right over 3 decimals land in plot no. 489. He has also failed to disclose the documents which allegedly were not in his possession at the time when the plaint was presented, and when he discovered those documents or what are those documents. The petitioner has failed to establish that there was no default on his part and this application for amendment was filed bonafide. He has claimed construction of a house over the suit property in March, 2011 and the application for amendment was filed on 14.11.2011. 5. In the above facts, the trial judge has rightly declined to entertain the application for amendment. Finding no merit in the challenge to the impugned order dated 19.01.2012, the writ petition is dismissed.