JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The petitioner was the defendant, who aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial court, whereby he allowed the application for placing on record certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 21.6.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1, Poanta Sahib and another application for amendment of the plaint, has filed the present petition. 2. In the suit initially filed by the plaintiff, she had sought declaration to the effect that being the only heir/daughter of deceased Bashiri, she is entitled to succeed to her entire suit property and the defendants have no right, title and interest in the land of Bashiri and the allegations are so contained in para 1 of the un-amended suit, which read thus: 1. “That Bashiri, the mother of plaintiff was the exclusive owner in possession of the land bearing khata khatauni No. 28/59, Khasra No. 271/1 measuring 2 bihga to the extent of ½ share and in khata khatauni No. 28/61, Khasra No. 268/5 bigha , situated in Mauza Jagatpur, Tehsil Poanta Sahib, hereinafter alled the suit land. The defendant No.1 fraudulently got procured power of attorney from Bashiri and started alienating her land. When she came to know about the fraudulent acts of defendant No.1, she got the power of attorney cancelled of Latif, procured by him fraudulently. Now, Smt. Bashiri has died on 8.1.2008 and the plaintiff is the only legal successor of deceased Bashiri, being the only daughter. The defendants No.1 to 3 are claiming themselves owner of the suit property on the basis of a false, fraudulent document alleging it to be the will of deceased Bashiri whereas Bashiri never executed any will in favour of defendant No.1 to 3 nor she could legally execute the will of her entire property in favour of defendants. And as such, the alleged document/will is illegal, fraudulent, got manufactured by the defendant No.1 with the connivance of witnesses and does not effect the right, title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit property, left by deceased Bashiri.” 3. And as such, the alleged document/will is illegal, fraudulent, got manufactured by the defendant No.1 with the connivance of witnesses and does not effect the right, title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit property, left by deceased Bashiri.” 3. Now, para No.1 of the plaint is sought to be substituted as under: “That Rehmatullah was owner in possession of the land comprise of Khasra No.271/6 measuring 2 bigha and Khasra No. 268/5 measuring 21-8 bigha in the share of Rehmatullah situated in Mauza Jagatpurm Tehsil Poanta Sahib and he was having two wives namely Sadikan and Smt. Bashiri. The plaintiff is the daughter of Bashiri and Shakoori was daughter of Sadikan and defendant No.7 to 19 are legal heirs of shakoori who is no more. After the death of Rehmatullahy, his property was to be inherited by Smt. Bashiri to the extent of 1/8th share and the remaining was to devolve upon Gafuri and Shakoori in equal share. But the succession of Rehmatullah on the basis of will dated 14.10.82 is illegal and fraudulent. He was not competent to disinherit his legal heirs and to bequeath his entire property/suit land in favour of Bashiri disinheriting his daughter Gaffuri and Shakoori. Therefore, the will dated 14.10.82 is illegal, void and is not binding upon the right of plaintiff and LRs of Shakoori and the subsequent mutation on the basis of will of the suit land in favour of Bashiri is illegal and void. And as such, sale made by Smt. Bashiri on the basis of said revenue entries in favour of defendants, are not binding upon the right of the plaintiffs and said sale deed in their favour are valid only to the extent of 1/8th share of Smt. Bashiri and Bashiri never executed any will of the suit land in favour of defendant No.1 to 3 nor she was competent to do so.” In addition thereto, certain other amendments were also proposed. 4. The petitioner contested the application by filing reply wherein it was alleged that the litigation inter se the parties is pending since 2009 and the same is repeatedly being fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff but no evidence is being led by her. 4. The petitioner contested the application by filing reply wherein it was alleged that the litigation inter se the parties is pending since 2009 and the same is repeatedly being fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff but no evidence is being led by her. It was further contended that the amendment as sought for was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff from the very beginning and having failed to exercise due diligence, the amendment as sought for cannot be allowed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 6. As regards the allowing of application under order 7 rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘CPC’) whereby the respondent has been permitted to place on record the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 21.6.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1, Poanta Sahib, no exception to the same can be taken as the certified copy is otherwise per se admissible even at the time of hearing of the proceedings. 7. Therefore, the order passed by the learned trial court to that extent calls for no interference. 8. Now, adverting to the order whereby the learned trial court has allowed the application for amendment, I may, at the outset observe that the manner in which the application has been disposed of leaves much to desire as the learned trial court has virtually allowed the application only because at one stage his predecessor while dismissing the application under order 23 rule 1 CPC had observed that the remedy available to the plaintiff was to resort to the provisions of amendment as also for impleading all parties, i.e. heirs of Smt. Shakuri and others by invoking the provisions of order 1 rule 10 CPC. 9. Needless to say that despite such observations, the application(s) so filed on the basis of the observations, still have to be decided in accordance with law and could not have been allowed merely on the basis of the observations, more particularly, when the provisions of order 6 rule 17 CPC have undergone sea change after the amendment carried in the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC now reads thus:- “17. 10. Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC now reads thus:- “17. Amendment of Pleadings.- 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 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.” 11. It is evident from the bare perusal of the proviso that ordinarily amendment in pleadings is not allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court is satisfied that the party concerned could not apply even after exercise of due diligence for such amendment before the commencement of trial. In other words, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to have specifically pleaded that inspite of due diligence they could not raise the matter now sought to be raised. Afterall, right to amend is not an absolute right but depends on various well settled principles. Concededly, there is not even a whisper regarding this fact in the entire application. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has interpreted the proviso to be a requirement mandated to prevent frivolous applications for amendment intended, only to delay the trial. 13. In Salem Advocate Bar Association versus Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3353 , it was held as under:- “27. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code deals with amendment of pleadings. By Amendment Act 46 of 1999, this provision was deleted. It has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Now, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial. The proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Now, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial. There is no illegality in the provision.” 14. What is due diligence has though not been defined in the Code, but has then been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chander Kanta Bansal versus Rajinder Singh Anand (2008) 5 SCC 117 in the following terms:- “16. The words "due diligence" have not been defined in the Code. According to Oxford Dictionary (Edn.2006), the word "diligence" means careful and persistent application or effort. "Diligent" means careful and steady in application to one's work and duties, showing care and effort. As per Black's Law Dictionary (18th Edn.), "diligence" means a continual effort to accomplish something, care; caution; the attention and care required from a person in a given situation. "Due diligence" means the diligence reasonably expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a person who seeks to satisfy a legal requirement or to discharge an obligation. According to Words and Phrases by Drain-Dyspnea (Permanent Edn.13-A) "due diligence", in law, means doing everything reasonable, not everything possible. "Due diligence" means reasonable diligence; it means such diligence as a prudent man would exercise in the conduct of his own affairs.” 15. It is not in dispute that the suit out of which the present proceeding arise is pending before the trial court for recording the evidence on behalf of plaintiff’s witnesses and, therefore, the trial in the case had already begun. 16. In Kailash versus Nanhku and others (2005) 4 SCC 480 , the Hon’ble three Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with an election petition in no uncertain terms held that in a civil suit the trial begins when the issues are framed and the case is set down for recording of evidence. It is apt to reproduce the following observations:- “Trial” of election petition, when it commences? 13. At this point the question arises: When does the trial of an election petition commence or what is the meaning to be assigned to the word 'trial' in the context of an election petition? It is apt to reproduce the following observations:- “Trial” of election petition, when it commences? 13. At this point the question arises: When does the trial of an election petition commence or what is the meaning to be assigned to the word 'trial' in the context of an election petition? In a civil suit, the trial begins when issues are framed and the case is set down for recording of evidence……” 17. In Baldev Singh and others versus Manohar Singh and Another (2006) 6 SCC 498 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that commencement of trial as used in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 in the Code of Civil Procedure must be understood in a limited sense as meaning the final hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of arguments, as would be evident from the following observations: “17. Before we part with this order, we may also notice that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC provides that amendment of pleadings shall not be allowed when the trial of the Suit has High Court of H.P. already commenced. For this reason, we have examined the records and find that, in 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 meaning the final hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of arguments. As noted herein after, 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 of the CPC which confers wide power and unfettered discretion to the Court to allow an amendment of the written statement at any stage of the proceedings.” 18. In Ajendraprasadji N. Pandeyand another versus Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and others (2006) 12 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court after placing reliance on the judgment of Kailash (supra) reiterated that the trial is deemed to commence when the issues are settled and the case is set down for recording of evidence . This would be evident from the following observations: “60. The above averment, in our opinion, does not satisfy the requirement of Order 6 Rule 17 without giving the particulars which would satisfy the requirement of law that the matters now sought to be introduced by the amendment could not have been raised earlier in respect of due diligence. As held by this Court in Kailash vs. Nankhu (2005) 4 SCC 480 , the trial is deemed to commence when the issues are settled and the case is set down for recording of evidence.” 19. What, therefore, can be discerned from the various judgments referred to above, is that the trial is deemed to commence when the issues are settled and the case is set down for recording of evidence. Once it is so, then in terms of proviso to rule 17 of order 6, respondent was required to show due diligence and explain the circumstances under which he could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial. 20. The object of introducing the amendment in order 6 rule 17 CPC vide Amendment Act 46 of 1999 and further the question when trial will commence was a subject matter of recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Kumar Mehra vs. Roop Rani Mehra and others, (2018) 2 SCC 132 , wherein reiterating the ratio of the judgment as laid down in Salem Bar Association (supra), it was observed as under: 14. By Amendment Act 46 of 1999 with a view to shortage litigation and speed of the trial of the civil suits, Rule 17 of Order VI was omitted, which provision was restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 with a rider in the shape of the proviso limiting the power of amendment to a considerable extent. The object of newly inserted Rule 17 is to control filing of application for amending the pleading subsequent to commencement of trial. The object of newly inserted Rule 17 is to control filing of application for amending the pleading subsequent to commencement of trial. Not permitting amendment subsequent to commencement of the trial is with the object that when evidence is led on pleadings in a case, no new case be allowed to set up by amendments. The proviso, however, contains an exception by reserving right of the Court to grant amendment even after commencement of the trial, when it is shown that in spite of diligence, the said pleas could not be taken earlier. The object for adding proviso is to curtail delay and expedite adjudication of the cases. 15. This Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. Vs. Union of India, 2005 6 SCC 344 has noted the object of Rule 17 in Para 26 which is to the following effect: "26. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code deals with amendment of pleadings. By Amendment Act 46 of 1999, this provision was deleted. It has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being 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. The proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Now, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial. There is no illegality in the provision." 16. The judgment on which much reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant is Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. K.K. Modi & Ors., 2006 4 SCC 385 . This Court had occasion to consider and interpret Order VI Rule 17 in Paragraphs 15 and 16, in which following has been held:- "15. The object of the rule is that the courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. 16. Order 6 Rule 17 consists of two parts. 16. Order 6 Rule 17 consists of two parts. Whereas the first part is discretionary (may) and leaves it to the court to order amendment of pleading. The second part is imperative (shall) and enjoins the court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties." 17. Although Order VI Rule 17 permits amendment in the pleadings "at any stage of the proceedings", but a limitation has been engrafted by means of Proviso to the fact that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial is commenced. Reserving the Court's jurisdiction to order for permitting the party to amend pleading on being satisfied that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In a suit when trial commences? Order XVIII of the C.P.C. deal with "Hearing of the Suit and Examination of Witnesses". Issues are framed under Order XIV. At the first hearing of the suit, the Court after reading the plaint and written statement and after examination under Rule 1 of Order XIV is to frame issues. Order XV deals with "Disposal of the Suit at the first hearing", when it appears that the parties are not in issue of any question of law or a fact. After issues are framed and case is fixed for hearing and the party having right to begin is to produce his evidence, the trial of suit commences.” 21. Indubitably, there is not even a whisper in the entire application regarding the exercise of due diligence and even if the case of the respondent is taken at its best, the cause of action can be said to be arisen to file the application for amendment when her application under order 23 rule 1 CPC came to be dismissed and the court observed that she could file an application for amendment and for addition of parties. However, the present application has not been filed promptly but has been filed nearly three years after the passing of the order and came to be filed only in the year 2014. 22. Having failed to prove on record due diligence, the order passed by the learned trial court obviously is not only illegal but is perverse and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. 23. 22. Having failed to prove on record due diligence, the order passed by the learned trial court obviously is not only illegal but is perverse and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. 23. In view of aforesaid discussion, I find some merit in this petition and, therefore, the same is partly allowed by setting aside the order passed by the trial court on the application filed by the respondent under order 6 rule 17 read with order 1 rule 10 CPC for amendment of the plaint. Whereas the petition against the order allowing the application under order 7 rule 14 (3) CPC for placing on record the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 21.6.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.1, Poanta Sahib is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.