ORDER 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 21.11.2012 passed by the Eleventh Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 27A/2011, by which the application filed by the respondent under Order VI rule 17 CPC has been allowed and the respondent has been permitted to amend the plaint. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners had already denied their relationship of landlord and tenant between themselves and plaintiff/respondent and in spite of that, the respondent did not move an application for amendment and waited till the case was fixed for final arguments. Thus, the respondent has belatedly filed an application for amendment in the plaint and the delay in filing the application has not been explained and the trial Court has also committed material illegality by allowing the application filed under Order VI rule 17 CPC. 3. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that since the petitioners had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, therefore, by amending the plaint the respondent had merely tried to incorporate the additional ground for eviction on the basis of denial of title. However, when the counsel for the respondent was asked to go through the amendment, then he fairly conceded that the ground of denial of title has not been raised by way of amendment, but by way of amendment, an alternative relief was prayed that in case if it is held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and defendants, then the plaintiff may be granted a decree of possession on the basis of title. However, the counsel for the respondent could not explain as to why this application was not filed at the earliest and why this application was filed at time of final hearing. Order VI rule 17 CPC reads 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.” 4. There is nothing in the application to show that what prevented the respondent to file the application at the earliest. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application filed at the belated stage of final arguments cannot be permitted. Accordingly, the order dated 21.11.2012 passed by the Eleventh Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 27A/2011 is hereby set aside. The application for amendment filed by respondent under Order VI rule 17 CPC is hereby rejected. The trial court is directed to decide the suit as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today, as the suit has already reached to the stage of final arguments. 5. The interim order dated 12.12.2012 is hereby recalled. 6. With aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is hereby allowed.