ORDER : 1. Aggrieved of the order dated 7th February, 2019, wherein an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, instituted by the petitioners/defendants has been declined; is the cause for institution of the instant writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners insistently argued that the Court below fell in gross error of law in declining the application of the petitioners for, which is necessary and material for complete adjudication of the matter. 3. According to learned counsel, there would be no change in the nature of suit in case application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, was granted. It is further pointed out that the petitioners learnt about the sale agreement dated 16th May, 1992, at the stage of the petitioner’s/defendant’s evidence during the course of cross-examination. 4. Learned counsel further added that a glance of sale agreement dated 16th May, 1992, would reflect that the sale agreement involving the same property was executed by one Shri Ramji Lal and Shri Kalyan Sahai in favour of Shri Ramdhan i.e. father of the petitioner, whereas the property is still registered in the name of Shri Ramji Lal and Shri Kalyan Sahai, who executed the sale agreement on 16th May, 1992. That apart, mere execution of the sale agreement would not confer ownership/title, and therefore, father of the petitioners could not have executed sale agreement passing on better title than he himself had. Hence, in such factual matrix the Court below ought to have granted the application for amendment of written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, instituted on 5th December, 2018. 5. Heard and considered. 6. Indisputably, suit proceedings were instituted in the year 2006, leading to registration of Civil Suit Nos. 06/2006 and 26/2018, Ganpati Vishwas vs. Lalit and Others. The suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs on the basis of sale agreement executed by father of the petitioners on 30th December, 2005, for a sale consideration to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lac Fifty Thousand). An amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lac) was received by father of the petitioners and the due amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) was to be paid, at the time of execution of registration of sale deed. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lac Fifty Thousand). An amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lac) was received by father of the petitioners and the due amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) was to be paid, at the time of execution of registration of sale deed. It is pleaded case of the petitioners that late Ramdhan died on the very next date of execution of the sale agreement and FIR was lodged bearing No. 145/2006, for offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC for the alleged agreement of sale, was a forged document. 7. It is also not in dispute that written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioners admitting the pleadings of plaint. The Court below taking note of this fact has recorded findings, which reads thus:- ^^Áfroknhx.k ds firk Jh jke/ku iq= xkso/kZu yky ds futh LokfeRo] vf/kdkj ,oa mldh LoŒ vftZr lEifRr mlds dCts bLrseku dk ,d edku rFkk ,d nqdku okds ukSeqfB;ku dk ckl okMZ la[;k 18] ckanhdqbZ rglhy clok ds fLFkr jgh gS] tks mlds rUgk dCts bLrseky dh lEifRr jgh gS rFkk mls mDr lEifRr dks foØ; djus ds lEiw.kZ vf/kdkj gkfly FksA mDr lEifRr dks ;gka ds mijkar lEifRr oknxzLr ls lEcksf/kr fd;k x;k gS] ftlds iwoZ esa vke jkLrk] if'pe esa ukSewB;ku dk ckl] mRrj esa X;kjlk ekyh dk edku rFkk nf{k.k esa c`tfd'kksj lSuh dk edku fLFkr gSA mDr nqdku ij oknh dk HkkbZ vk'kqrks"k ekg fnlEcj 2005 ls gh fdjk;snkj pyk vkrk gSA** 8. DW-1 Prem Kumar (petitioner No. 2), in his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, stated thus:- ^^eSa ÁLrqr okn esa cgSfl;r Áfroknh la[;k 2 i{kdkj eqdnek gwa rFkk eSa oknh x.kifr fo'okl o oknxzLr lEifRr ls c[kwch ifjfpr gawA pwafd oknxzLr lEifRr rUgk gekjs dCts o LokfeRo dh lEifRr gSA oknxzLr lEifRr iq[rk edku ls oknh x.kifr fo'okl dk fdlh fdLe dk dksbZ ljksdkj ugha gSA okn oknh furkUr] vlR;] cukoVh ,oa fujk/kkj rF;ksa ij is'k fd;k x;k gSA** 9. The petitioners instituted an application under order 6 Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment in the written statement in the following terms:- ^^fd oknxzLr lEifRr muds firk ls fojklr esa ÁkIr gksus ds dkj.k Áfroknhx.k bl ln~Hkkfod fo'okl esa Fks fd oknxzLr lEifRr ds fo"k; esa Áfroknhx.k ds firk dks mlds laiw.kZ oS/k LokfeRo ds vf/kdkj ÁkIr gS] fdUrq mDr bdjkjukek fnukad 16-05-1992 ls irk pyus ij Kkr gqvk fd lEifRr dk LokfeRo Áfroknh ds firk ds ikl ugh FkkA tc dksbZ gd o vf/kdkj VkbZVy jke/ku dks ugha Fkk rks rFkkdfFkr bdjkjukek fnukafdr 30-12-2005 ls oknh dks dksbZ gd o vf/kdkj ÁkIr ugha gksrs gSaA u gh fof/kd :i ls oknh ds gd esa fdlh bdjkjukek fnukad 30-12-2005 ds fofufnZ"V ikyuk vFkok foØ; dh jftLVªh fu"iknu djok ldrs gSaA bl dkj.k ls bl Ádj.k esa ckn esa tks rF; Áfroknh ds /;ku esa vk, gSa] mudks tokc nkok esa tksM+k tkuk vko';d gS] rkfd U;k;ky; ds le{k okLrfod fLFkfr vk ldsA blls Ádj.k ij Hkh dksbZ ÁHkko ugha iMrk gSA** 10. The Court below taking note of the text of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and relying upon the opinion of the Apex Court of the land in the case of Vidyabai and Others vs. Padmalatha and Another, 2009 AIR SCW 899, contemplating bar to amendment of pleadings after trial has commenced consequent upon framing of issues; more particularly, amendment of written statement after plaintiff filed an affidavit in lieu of examination in chief, prayer granted by the High Court for amendment of written statement was denied. In the case of Ram Niranjan Kajaria vs. Sheo Prakash Kajaria and Others, 2015 AIR SCW 6475, Apex Court of the land in no uncertain terms hold that amendment in written statement cannot be granted permitting to retrial admission. 11. Court below taking note of the opinion in the case of Ajnendraprasadji N. Pande and Another vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and Others, AIR 2007 SCW 513 while declining prayer for amendment of the written statement after trial began and evidence of three witnesses was over; so also documentary evidence tendered for the amending the written statement also introduced new and totally inconsistent case; declined the application of the petitioners. Specific note has also been taken of the stage of commencement of trial and opinion of the Apex Court of the land in the case of Bharat Karsondas Thakkar vs. Kiran Construction Co. Specific note has also been taken of the stage of commencement of trial and opinion of the Apex Court of the land in the case of Bharat Karsondas Thakkar vs. Kiran Construction Co. and Others, 2008 AIR SCW 3192, holding that amendment of plaint if substantially changing entire character of original suit; is not permissible. 12. In the instant case at hand, DW-1 Prem Kumar (Petitioner No. 2), has specifically stated that it was at the time of cross-examination, he was called upon by his counsel to look for the ‘Will’ which was stated to have been executed by his father in favour of his sister-Shyama Devi. Further, it was at the stage of cross-examination, he came across the sale agreement dated 16th May, 1992, which necessitated institution of the application seeking amendment prayed for. 13. Applying the law declared by the Apex Court of the land the Court below rightly concluded that the amendment prayed for by the petitioners, if granted, would definitely change the nature of the suit and would also occasion retraction of admission in the written statement. 14. Further, the suit proceedings commenced in the year 2006 and it was only on 3rd December, 2018, and the petitioners were advised by the counsel to lay hands on the ‘Will’ stated to have been executed in favour of the sister-Shyama Devi and while doing so, the petitioners learned about the alleged sale agreement dated 16th May, 1992. The plea appears to be unnatural in the course of normal human behavior. Moreover, introduction of evidence and amendment prayed for, if granted, would be contrary to the mandate of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC so also the law declared by the Apex Court of the land. 15. For the reasons aforesaid and reasonings recorded by the court below while declining the application of the petitioners vide impugned dated 7th February, 2019, suffers with no illegality or error so as to call for interference by the Court of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. In the result, the writ application fails and is, hereby dismissed.