JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J —By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 03.09.2016, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) , Court No. (1) , Rohru in CMA No. 2476 of 2016 in Civil Suit No. 1831 of 2009, vide which an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present petitioners for amendment of the plaint stood rejected by the learned Court below. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the petition are that petitionersplaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs") filed a suit for declaration that they alongwith proforma defendants in the suit were absolute owners in possession of land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 46/96, bearing Khasra No. 5, 364, 407, 408, 409, 477, 490, 491, 575, 759, 761, 766, 776, Kitas 13, measuring 022082 hectares, 46/97 Khasra No. 562, 563, 566, 573, 764, 782, Kitas 10 measuring 01 4082 hectares, Khasra No. 403/1, 488, 574, 762, Kita 4, measuring 00 3131, Khata Khatauni No. 46/98, Khasra Nos. 565, 406, measuring 22 2329 hectares, situated in revenue Chak Sondari, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P. and that defendants No. 1 to 3 had no right, title or interest over the suit land and also for consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants No. 1 to 3 from effecting sale, creating mortgage or charge or making any encumbrance over the suit land. 3. This suit upon remand by this Court, is still pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. After remand of the matter by this Court to the learned Trial Court, an application was filed by the plaintiffs praying for amendments in the plaint. The proposed amendments were as under: "7. That now the plaintiff wants to amend the plaint as follows: a. That new para no. (3A) is to be added as, "That as submitted above in para no. 3 of the plaint that the partition proceedings are illegal and contrary to the law and principle of natural justice because no opportunity has been provided to the plaintiffs and proforma defendants to place their submissions before AC 1st Grade (Partition) Chirgaon. The partition proceedings make it clear that plaintiff No. 3 has not been served in accordance with law. 3 of the plaint that the partition proceedings are illegal and contrary to the law and principle of natural justice because no opportunity has been provided to the plaintiffs and proforma defendants to place their submissions before AC 1st Grade (Partition) Chirgaon. The partition proceedings make it clear that plaintiff No. 3 has not been served in accordance with law. Similarly the proforma defendants No. 4, 6 to 8 have also not been properly served in accordance with law. So they were not aware of the proceedings being taken against them before AC 1st Grade partition Chirgaon. Therefore they have been deprived to raise material questions during the partition proceedings qua the question as to the property to be divided and the question as to the mode of making the partition, because while partitioning the land, the revenue office is bound to take into consideration the possession of a cosharer over a part of land, the value of the trees, the kind of the land, the construction of any cosharers over the land and the improvements made by any co sharer over the land in his possession prior to the partition. It is a settled law that the co sharer who is in possession of a definite portion of the land and has carried out any improvements over the same or has raised constructions over the same is entitled to get that portion, subject to his share in the joint land. It is clear that by undertaking the Exparty proceedings without effecting the proper service in accordance with law the plaintiff/cosharers have been deprived to raise the above facts during the partition proceedings which has resulted in material and substantial injuries as the AC 1st grade has not taken all these aspects into consideration while preparing the mode of partition and effecting division on the spot. Resultantly the plaintiffs and proforma defendants are being deprived of the property which is in their possession since prior to the partition and has improved the same by raising apple orchards and construction as submitted above. This is a manifest injustice cause to the plaintiffs and proforma defendants due to the result of illegal mode of partition dated 27.3.2004, order of partition and instrument of partition dated 3.9.2005 as well as mutation No. 78 dated 23.12.2006. This is a manifest injustice cause to the plaintiffs and proforma defendants due to the result of illegal mode of partition dated 27.3.2004, order of partition and instrument of partition dated 3.9.2005 as well as mutation No. 78 dated 23.12.2006. As per law cosharers were not only to be served properly and legally in the beginning on filing the partition application but also after mode of partition when partition was to be effected on the spot and even thereafter before preparation of instrument of partition. These statutory requirements have not been followed by the worthy AC 1st grade partition Chirgaon. Hence there is a violation of statutory provisions/procedure of law, rules and principles of natural justice." b. That the existing prayer clause qua declaration is numbered as "(a) ". c. That the new prayer clause (b) is to be added as, "A decree for declaration to the effect that partition proceedings including mode of partition dated 27.3.2004, order of partition and instrument of partition dated 3.9.2005 and subsequent mutation no. 78 dated 23.12.2006 in partition case no. 2XI/04 titled Bimla Devi versus Smt. Sarojani Kumari and others conducted by AC 1 st grade (partition) Chirgaon are illegal, null and void and in sheer violation of the statutory provisions/requirements/procedure of law and principle of natural justice and the plaintiffs and proforma defendants deserves to be heard by providing sufficient opportunity of hearing before the AC 1st grade partition Chirgaon." 4. The amendment was opposed by the contesting defendants, who took the stand in their reply that the filing of the application for amendment of the plaint was nothing but delay tactics being deployed by the plaintiffs. 5. The application was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 03.09.2016. While dismissing the application, learned Court held that the application stood filed by the plaintiffs just to linger on the proceedings and the amendment was not necessary for the proper adjudication of the case. Learned Court also held that plaintiffs had failed to mention that despite due diligence, the facts mentioned in the application were not within their knowledge and they gained knowledge of the said facts subsequently. On these basis, learned trial Court rejected the application. 6. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs/petitioners have filed the present petition. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings on record. 8. On these basis, learned trial Court rejected the application. 6. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs/petitioners have filed the present petition. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings on record. 8. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure envisages that 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. However, proviso to the same provides that no 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. 9. Coming to the facts of this case, the proposed amendments sought by the plaintiffs have already been mentioned above. In the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17, it stands mentioned that by way of proposed amendments, the plaintiffs intend to clarify and explain the already pleaded facts of partition by adding some necessary details/particulars without effecting any change in the nature of suit and cause of action. According to the plaintiffs, the facts were only clarificatory and explanatory in nature with regard to already pleaded facts and were necessary, vital and material for the appreciation of controversy involved in the suit. It was also mentioned in the application that the proposed amendment neither alters the nature of the suit nor the cause. In para 10 of the application, the following stands mentioned: "10. That keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no delay in amending the plaint. That inadvertently the amendment could not sought earlier in spite of due diligence. Even otherwise in such circumstances the amendment can be prayed at any stage of proceedings in view of the combined effect of order 7 rule 17 and its proviso." 10. As I have already mentioned above, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 very clearly and categorically contemplates that no 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. As I have already mentioned above, the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 very clearly and categorically contemplates that no 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. In the application, the only explanation given as to why what was intended to be incorporated by way of amendment could not be earlier incorporated in the original plaint, is that inadvertently the amendment could not be sought earlier in spite of due diligence. 12. In Mahila Ramkali Devi and others Vs. Nandram and others , (2015) 13 SCC 132 has held that it is well settled that rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice and a party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure. Hon''ble Supreme Court also held that Court always gives relief to amend the pleadings 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. 13. In Ram Niranjan Kajaria Vs. Sheo Prakash Kajaria and others , (2015) 10 SCC 203 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court reiterated the principles of considering applications for amendment of pleadings by giving reference to its earlier judgments as under: "20. On amendments generally, in the decision reported in Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons and others[5], after referring to Gautam Sarup , the principles on amendment have been summarized at Paragraph63. It has been held as follows: "63. On amendments generally, in the decision reported in Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons and others[5], after referring to Gautam Sarup , the principles on amendment have been summarized at Paragraph63. It has been held as follows: "63. On critically analyzing both the English and Indian cases, some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment: (1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case; (2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide; (3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and (6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive." 14. The law declared by the Hon''ble Supreme Court referred to above lays down the parameters which are to be taken into consideration while dealing with the applications filed for amendment of pleadings. 15. It is also relevant to mention at this stage that the existing provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure stood substituted by way of amendment in the year 2002 and are there in the Code w.e.f. 01.07.2002. 16. Records demonstrate that the original suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the year 2009. The suit was initially dismissed and appeal filed against the judgment of dismissal was also dismissed by the Appellate Court. Upon appeal to this Court, the matter stands remanded to the learned trial Court, probably for the reason that certain parties had died before the lis initially stood decided by the learned trial Court, as is borne out from the impugned order. 17. Be that as it may, as already mentioned above, the original suit was filed in the year 2009. 17. Be that as it may, as already mentioned above, the original suit was filed in the year 2009. Now, there is no explanation given in the application as to why the amendments which are sought by way of application for amendment were not sought by the plaintiffs at the earliest. What took seven years for the plaintiffs to move an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has not at all been explained in the application so filed by the plaintiffs before the learned trial Court. In fact, the application is conspicuously silent as to why the pleas which are now sought to be raised by way of amendment, could not have been raised by the plaintiffs before the commencement of trial despite due diligence. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that the facts which led to the filing of application for amendment in the plaint came into the knowledge or notice of the plaintiffs only in the year 2016. The proposed amendments itself demonstrate that the plaintiffs want additional declaration to the effect that partition proceedings and mode of partition dated 27.03.2004, 03.09.2005 and subsequent mutations attested were illegal, null and void. In my considered view, the amendments so proposed in the application stand rightly rejected by the learned trial Court because the application filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint did not fall within the parameters contained in Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court while interpreting the said statutory provisions. The application was not only a belated one, but as already mentioned above, the same did not contain any cogent explanation as to why the amendments which were sought to be incorporated were not pleaded in the original suit itself, because it is not as if the event which were intended to be incorporated by way of amendment took place after the filing of the suit. Therefore, this Court concurs with the findings returned by the learned trial Court that the application for amendment was but filed for delaying the matter. It is further pertinent to point out that even in the application, it stands mentioned by the plaintiffs that the proposed amendments were just to clarify and explain the already pleaded facts of partition etc. Therefore, this Court concurs with the findings returned by the learned trial Court that the application for amendment was but filed for delaying the matter. It is further pertinent to point out that even in the application, it stands mentioned by the plaintiffs that the proposed amendments were just to clarify and explain the already pleaded facts of partition etc. In my considered view, the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be used for "clarifying" the already pleaded facts, until and unless the Court is satisfied that the requirements contained under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure stand fulfilled by the parties. Therefore also, I do not find any infirmity with the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 18. In view of above, as there is no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.