ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this Court questioning the order dated 15.06.2019 on I.A. filed under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. in M.C.No.81/2017 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Raibag. 2. The petitioner is husband and respondent is wife. The petitioner-husband filed M.C.No.81/2017 under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 for divorce. The defendant filed her written statement. Based on the pleadings, the parties led their evidence and when the petition stood at the stage of arguments, the petitioner filed I.A. under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. for amendment of plaint by way of adding one paragraph as 1(A), which reads as follows: Any Other Language 3. The respondent-wife filed her objection to the said application and contended that the said application is filed only to drag on the proceedings and the application is not maintainable at the stage of arguments. She further denied the allegations contained in the amendment application. The Trial Court under impugned order rejected the application on the ground that the amendment sought is after thought, that too at the stage of arguments. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition papers. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the amendment sought for by the petitioner is very much necessary for deciding the issue involved in the petition. The petitioner to prove the illicit relationship of the respondent-wife, collected call records and intends to amend the plaint by adding one para of averment. It is his submission that the said call record information was not available with the petitioner-husband as on the date of filing the petition. As soon as he got the information about call records, he filed the present amendment application. Hence, he prays for allowing the I.A. for amendment. 6. Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. permits amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, but if such an application for amendment is filed subsequent to commencement of trial, the party applying for such amendment shall assign reasons to demonstrate that inspite of his due diligence, he could not raise such plea earlier. 7. 6. Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. permits amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, but if such an application for amendment is filed subsequent to commencement of trial, the party applying for such amendment shall assign reasons to demonstrate that inspite of his due diligence, he could not raise such plea earlier. 7. In the case on hand, the petitioner intends to add one paragraph of averment to state that the respondent-wife was having illicit relationship with one Shrikant Venkappagol and states that they were conversing over mobile phone, which details he got subsequently. The petitioner has filed petition under Section 13(1)(i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. After recording of evidence, the petition is at the stage of final argument. What the petitioner intends to add by way of amendment was certainly within the knowledge of the petitioner as on the date of filing the petition. The petitioner has not assigned any convincing reasons as to why he could not bring on record the said averment earlier itself. Admittedly, the petition is at the stage of arguments. When the petition after recording evidence, stands at the stage of argument, it is not permissible to permit the amendment, which would reopen the entire case that too when the petitioner has failed to assign any reason. I find no error or perversity in the order passed by the Trial Court. No ground is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the order of the Trial Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.