JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral): By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for setting aside order, dated 11.12.2018 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., vide which an application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint, has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under: Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, namely, Sh. Chhotu Khan filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents herein in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nalagarh in July, 2013. His case was that he was owner in possession of suit property comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 622 min/783, measuring 18.60 sq. metres in Khasra No. 689, situated in Up-Mohal Purana Nalagarh, HB No. 139/1, Pargana & Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. Defendants were absolute strangers qua the suit property and were having no right, title or interest over the same, yet they started demolishing old construction as also started digging foundation in the suit property with intent to grab the property, as the suit land was adjoining the property of defendants. In these circumstances, suit was filed by Shri Chhotu Khan for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from changing the nature of the suit land or dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property by demolishing old construction raised over the suit land by the plaintiff. 3. Written statement to the plaint was filed by the defendants in August, 2013 alongwith a counter claim. In the meanwhile, Shri Chhotu Khan died and his legal representatives, i.e., the present petitioners were brought on record as plaintiffs in place of deceased Shri Chhotu Khan. 4. In the month of November, 2018, an application was filed by the petitioners for amendment of the plaint under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that during the pendency of the suit, the defendants had encroached upon some portion of the suit land in spite of an injunction order somewhere in the month of December, 2013, which had necessitated the amendment of the suit. The application was resisted by the nonapplicants- defendants. 5. The application was resisted by the nonapplicants- defendants. 5. Vide impugned order, said application has been rejected by the learned Court below by holding that the application was filed after a lapse of about five years from the date when spot was inspected by the Local Commissioner and further that the nature of the amendment sought in the plaint also did not relate with the controversy in hand, especially in view of the counter claim preferred by the defendants. Learned Court also held that plaintiffs could not explain the delay and why the same was not filed earlier. It thus held that the plaintiffs had failed to show sufficient ground for allowing the application. On these basis, learned Court dismissed the application. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petition. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because it could not be said that the application for amendment of the plaint was filed at a belated stage or that the petitioners had not exercised due diligence. He further argued that because the petitioners were subsequently impleaded as plaintiffs, on account of them being the legal representatives of deceased Chhotu Khan, they had a right to seek amendment in the plaint, as in their individual capacity as plaintiffs, they could rake up the issue subsequently. Learned Senior Counsel has also argued that even otherwise, it was settled law that amendment of plaint was to be liberally allowed by the Courts, as compared to written statement. 8. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has submitted that there was no infirmity in the impugned order and the findings returned by the learned Court below called for no interference, as no case was made out by the petitioners for amendment of the plaint. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as the record appended with the petition. 10. It is also a matter of record that the suit praying for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in the year, 2013. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as the record appended with the petition. 10. It is also a matter of record that the suit praying for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in the year, 2013. Though nothing has been mentioned in the present petition as to when did Shri Chhotu Khan die and when the present petitioners were impleaded as plaintiffs in their capacity of being legal representatives of Shri Chhotu Khan, however, this Court has been informed that Shri Chhotu Khan died somewhere in the year 2014-2015 and the present petitioners were impleaded as plaintiffs somewhere in the year 2014-2015. 11. It is a matter of record that the application for amendment of the plaint was filed by the petitioners in the month of November, 2018. The reasons mentioned in the application as to why amendment in the plaint was necessitated, were that during the pendency of the suit, defendants had encroached upon the suit land after demolishing the old structure somewhere in the month of December, 2013 and had also taken away the steel guarders and wooden planks worth Rs.15,000/-, which was a fresh cause necessitating amendment in the plaint, as the plaintiffs were entitled for grant of a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to hand over the possession of suit property to the plaintiffs. 12. Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides 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, but 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. 13. 13. Thus, it is apparent from the perusal of statutory provisions that first and foremost the party seeking amendment in the pleadings, has to cross the hurdle of due diligence, meaning thereby that it has to satisfy the Court that the proposed amendment could not be incorporated in the pleadings earlier despite due diligence. It is only after this hurdle is crossed by a party that the Court enters into the issue as to whether the proposed amendment is necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the lis or not. 14. In the present case, events which according to the petitioner have necessitated amendment of the plaint even as per the petitioners took place in December, 2013. There is no cogent explanation given in the application as to why the plaint was not immediately amended after December, 2013 by filing an appropriate application in this regard. The contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the reason for this was that petitioners were subsequently impleaded as party in the suit, in my considered view, has no legal force. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties to the suit under the provisions of Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In other words, it is not as if the petitioners were subsequently added as party to the lis on the ground that they were necessary parties. They came to be impleaded as plaintiffs in their capacity of being the legal representatives of Shri Chhotu Khan, who died during the pendency of the petition. As earlier discussed, incidentally there is not even a whisper in the pleadings as to when Shri Chhotu Khan died and when were the petitioners impleaded as plaintiffs in their capacity of being legal representatives of Shri Chhotu Khan in the suit. Petitioners are stated to be impleaded as plaintiffs being legal representatives of deceased Shri Chhotu Ram somewhere in the year 2014-2015. Even from the year 2015, there is no cogent explanation in the application filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure as to what took the petitioners around three years in filing the application. This demonstrates that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case that despite due diligence, the proposed amendment could not be incorporated by the petitioners in the pleadings earlier. 15. This demonstrates that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case that despite due diligence, the proposed amendment could not be incorporated by the petitioners in the pleadings earlier. 15. The second contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that as the petitioners stood impleaded as plaintiffs later on, they had an independent right to raise the plea of having the plaint amended, is also in my considered view without any legal basis. As the petitioners entered into the footsteps of their predecessor-in-interest, they did not acquire any status in the lis better than their predecessor in interest. As the purported act of defendants of dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land, even as per the petitioners took place when their predecessor-in-interest was alive, it was for him to have had taken appropriate steps in this regard, which admittedly, he did not do during his life time. After his death, the petitioners entered into his footsteps. Then also, they could have had filed an application praying for amendment in the plaint within some reasonable time after being impleaded as plaintiffs, which also was not done by them. There is undue long delay on the part of petitioners in moving the Court for amendment of the plaint, which has not been satisfactorily explained by them. 16. The third contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as learned Court below has erred in not appreciating that the prayer for amendment in the plaint has to be liberally construed, in my considered view, is completely mis-placed. The law is to the contrary. Settled law is that in the matter of a prayer being made for amendment in the written statement, then such a prayer has to be liberally construed by the Court of law. However, the fact of the matter still remains that be it the amendment of the plaint or the written statement, the spirit of Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be given a go bye by the Court concerned. 17. However, the fact of the matter still remains that be it the amendment of the plaint or the written statement, the spirit of Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be given a go bye by the Court concerned. 17. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners praying for amendment of the plaint, because in my considered view, learned Trial Court has rightly dismissed the said application by holding that the petitioners were not able to explain due diligence and as the application was filed at a belated stage, the same could not have been allowed. 18. In view of the findings returned hereinabove, as this Court finds no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.