ORDER : 1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer :- “1. Quash the order dated 07.10.2013. 2. The application of the respondents filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC may kindly be ordered to be rejected. 3. Any other appropriate order, which deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner-defendant.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondents had filed the civil suit seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners in respect of a plot situated at Swarupganj. The suit was filed in 2005 whereas the written statement was filed by the defendant on 18.02.2006. The issues were framed on 29.03.2007 and the proceedings carried on thereafter. The respondent plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment in the plaint on two counts. The first count was that the parameters describing the surroundings of the property were to be rectified. Secondly, the amendment sought is that the possession has been taken by the petitioner defendant before 28.10.2005. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has clearly pointed out that the suit of 2005 where the issues were already framed cannot be sought to be amended on the ground of a particular event that has taken place before 28.10.2005 as in the application itself, the respondent has failed to show the due diligence on the part of the plaintiff. The order 6 Rule 17 reads as follows :- “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.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has harped upon the facts that on a bare reading of the application, the due diligence on the part of the plaintiff respondent is not reflected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has harped upon the facts that on a bare reading of the application, the due diligence on the part of the plaintiff respondent is not reflected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Meera Ben (Smt.) Vs. Amritlal & anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1669/2015) decided on 18.02.2015. The relevant portion of this judgment reads as follows :- “Admittedly, in the present case the plaint was filed on 22.02.2010, the written statement was filed on 29.05.2010, the replication was filed on 25.03.2011, whereafter the affidavits of three witnesses were filed by the plaintiff and, till that stage, the petitioner continued to claim the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- as a consideration in the alternative for the sale deeds executed by defendant No.1; however, the application was filed after the affidavits were filed seeking to amend the alternative plea enhancing the same from Rs. 3,50,000/- to 18,00,000/-. 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. 3,50,000/- to 18,00,000/-. 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. 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. In view of the above discussion, there is apparently no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed summarily. The stay application is also dismissed.” 6. In view of the above discussion, there is apparently no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed summarily. The stay application is also dismissed.” 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Mahila Ramkali Devi & Ors. Vs. Nandram (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors. AIR 2015 Supreme Court 2270. The relevant portion of this judgment reads as under :- “20. It is well settled that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure. The Court always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost.” 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the nature of suit would not change and the technicalities cannot be permitted to defeat the process of adjudication. 8. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the legislative intention behind bringing the word due diligence in the proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 particularly when the trial has commenced has a straight ramification. This Court also finds that on the face of the fact, the due diligence is not reflected on the part of the plaintiff respondents as the suit was filed on 26.10.2005 whereas the written statements were submitted on 18.02.2006 and the issues were framed on 29.03.2007 and thus, the trial commenced. Since the trial had already commenced in 2007, therefore, the respondent plaintiff coming in for a rectification / modification / amendment on the ground of an event which happened before 28.10.2005 cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as a due diligence on the part of the respondent plaintiff. Since the trial had already commenced in 2007, therefore, the respondent plaintiff coming in for a rectification / modification / amendment on the ground of an event which happened before 28.10.2005 cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as a due diligence on the part of the respondent plaintiff. The trial had commenced and the application for amendment does not reflect due diligence and thus, the straight application of order 6 Rule 17 would debar the respondent from seeking the amendment in question regarding the status of the possession which he alleges to have been taken away from him prior to 28.10.2015 whereas the application for the amendment has been preferred on 14.01.2013 and has been decided by the learned Court below on 07.10.2013. 9. In light of the aforesaid observation, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 07.10.2013 is quashed and set aside.