JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. By means of instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.12.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Court no. 4, Shahjahanpur rejecting amendment application Paper No. 20-C refusing amendment of the plaint at the appellate stage. 2. The appellate court, while rejecting amendment application, has held that the amendment sought is contrary to the pleadings taken by the petitioner in para 5 of the replication. In case the amendment is allowed, it will change the nature of the case set up by the petitioner before the trial court. 3. The petitioner had instituted Original Suit No. 378 of 2007 alleging that his house is in existence over the suit property and the defendants are trying to interfere in his possession. Consequently, he sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession, use and occupation of the house. The suit was contested by the defendants by taking a specific plea that the house is situated over Gata no. 307 admeasuring 0.575 hectare which belongs to them. The petitioner filed replication. In para 5 thereof, he pleaded that the house is not situated over Gata no. 307. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The petitioner filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, he filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint. By the amendment sought, the petitioner wanted to introduce a plea to the effect that the land over which the house is built, was purchased by him from one Dharm Singh @ Dhanna Singh S/o Jaggi Singh for a sale consideration of Rs. 92,000/-. It was alleged that in respect of the sale transaction, a receipt was executed before Notary Public on 6.2.2001 in presence of the witnesses. The petitioner further claim that the aforesaid plea could not be taken in the original plaint, though the facts were disclosed to his previous counsel. When he engaged a new counsel in appeal and he was preparing the matter for final hearing, it came to his knowledge that these important facts had not been mentioned and accordingly, amendment was sought. 4. The suit is of the year 2007 i.e. after the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 were amended by Act No. 22 of 2002 w.e.f. 1.7.2002. 4. The suit is of the year 2007 i.e. after the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 were amended by Act No. 22 of 2002 w.e.f. 1.7.2002. The proviso which has been introduced in the substituted provision specifically provides 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 the trial. In case the suit property had been purchased by the petitioner, it does not appeal to reason that such important fact was left out from being mentioned in the plaint by his previous counsel. In any view of the matter, the plea which was sought to be raised, was well within the knowledge of the petitioner and the alleged inadvertent mistake could have been discovered, had due diligence been exercised. 5. The petitioner claims that he had purchased the suit property from Dharm Singh for Rs. 92,000/- by executing a receipt before Public Notary. Although the correctness of the plea sought to be introduced by amendment is not to be considered while deciding whether amendment application should be allowed or not, but this Curt cannot lose sight of the fact that a property having a value of more than Rs. 100/- could only be transferred by means of a registered conveyance deed. On the face of it, the plea sought to be introduced is not sustainable in law inasmuch as there could not be transfer of any property on the basis of a receipt executed before Public Notary. However, this Court is not inclined to go into the said aspect, but declines to interfere with the impugned order, as it does not find any jurisdictional error or any injustice having occasioned to warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.