ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-defendants (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 01.11.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge Court No. 11 Jaipur in Civil suit No. 125/2012, whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 has been dismissed. 2. Facts of the case are that respondent no. 1 to 9-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a suit for Osra, settlement of account, partition of the property and permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants. On receipt of summons, the defendants put in appearance and filed the written statement as also the counter claim. During the pendency of the writ petition, the defendants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement. The plaintiffs filed a reply thereto. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court, vide its order date 1.11.2018, dismissed the defendants’ application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that Govind Das, through whom the plaintiffs no. 2 to 9 are claiming their rights, filed a suit titled Mahant Govind Das Chela Laxman Dass, Mahant Mandir Sita Ram Ji, Amer Road, Jaipur Versus Ram Sharan before Addl. Munsiff Magistrate No.1, Jaipur. In the said suit, on 21.3.2018, a compromise was arrived at between the plaintiffs no. 2 to 9 and defendant in the Lok Adalat in regard to temple Sitaram Ji, Amer Road, Jaipur. Based thereupon, a compromise decree was passed, which was subsequently confirmed vide judgment and decree dated 22.4.2018. Learned counsel further submits that from the aforesaid decree, it was amply clear that the plaintiffs had no concerned with the temple of Thakur Sita Ram Ji situated at Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. In this view of the matter, for effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the matter, the amendment sought for, was required to be allowed. 4. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: (I) State Bank of Hyderabad Versus Municipal Corporation (2007) 1 SCC 765 (II) Baldev Singh Versus Manohar Singh (2006) 6 SCC 498 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs supported the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs supported the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 7. The Trial Court dealt with the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to above, cited by learned counsel for the defendants, and observed that although it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the proviso incorporated under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by way of Amendment Act 2002 would have no retrospective effect, yet on that sole basis, the application of the defendants cannot be allowed for the reason that the Court will have to see as to whether the amendment sought for by the defendants was necessary to be incorporated in the written statement. 8. The Trial Court while dismissing the defendants’ application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC rightly held that the defendants failed to disclose as to how the amendment sought for was related to the pending suit, more particularly in view of the fact that the suit in which the compromise decree was passed, was pending since the year 1988 and the defendants possessed knowledge in this regard. Furthermore, with regard to the said pending suit, the defendants pleaded in their written statement and cross-examined the plaintiff at length and even exhibits were marked on the plaint and written statement. Hence, the amendment sought could have been incorporated since the inception or immediately after filing the written statement. The amendment was sought after a long time with a view to delay the trial for the reason that evidence of the plaintiffs had already been completed and the defendants had also submitted their affidavit in evidence. The defendants failed to disclose as to how the factum of passing of the compromise decree was material for the adjudication of the controversy. The Trial Court further observed that a person or pujary could have been the pujari of one temple or various temples. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv Gopal Sah Vs. Sita Ram Saraugi and Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC 1478 has held as under: “11. We have gone through the amendment application carefully where we do not find any explanation whatsoever for this towering delay. We would expect some explanation, atleast regarding the delay since the delay was very substantial. Sita Ram Saraugi and Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC 1478 has held as under: “11. We have gone through the amendment application carefully where we do not find any explanation whatsoever for this towering delay. We would expect some explanation, atleast regarding the delay since the delay was very substantial. The whole amendment application, when carefully scanned, does not show any explanation whatsoever. This negligent complacency on the part of the plaintiffs would not permit them to amend the plaint, more particularly when the claim has, apparently, become barred by time. 12. It is quite true that this Court in a number of decisions, has allowed by way of an amendment even the claims which were barred by time. However, for that there had to be a valid basis made out in the application and first of all there had to be bona fides on the part of the plaintiffs and a reasonable explanation for the delay. It is also true that the amendments can be introduced at any stage of the suit, however, when by that amendment an apparently time barred claim is being introduced for the first time, there would have to be some explanation and secondly, the plaintiff would have to show his bona fides, particularly because such claims by way of an amendment would have the effect of defeating the rights created in the defendant by lapse of time. When we see the present facts, it is clear that no such attempt is made by the plaintiffs anywhere more particularly in the amendment application. “The principles for deciding the amendment application have been aptly discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chakreshwari Construction Private Limited Vs. Monohar Lal reported in (2017) 5 SCC 212 . Relevant paragraph No.13 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:- "13.The Principle applicable for deciding the application made for amendment in the pleadings remains no more res integra and is laid down in several cases. In Revajeetu Builders and Developers V. Narayanaswamy & Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84 this Court, after examining the entire previous case law on the subject, culled out the following principle in para 63 of the judgment which reads as under: "63. In Revajeetu Builders and Developers V. Narayanaswamy & Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84 this Court, after examining the entire previous case law on the subject, culled out the following principle in para 63 of the judgment which reads as under: "63. On critically analysing 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 amendment if a fresh such 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 non exhaustive." 10. Inarguably and rather agreeably, the defendants filed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC with inexplicable delay and without stating any premise therefor. The compromise was arrived at on 21.3.2018 in the suit which was pending adjudication since the year 1988, which was well within the knowledge of the defendants as they pleaded in that regard in their written statement and cross-examined the plaintiff at length and even exhibits were marked on the plaint and written statement. In this way, although the compromise was arrived at subsequently, yet amendment with regard to which was sought belatedly for which no plausible explanation was given. The Court cannot allow an application seeking amendment unless there is sufficient reason to show that the party intending to seek amendment acted fairly. It ought to have justness in its favour while the application for seeking amendment is being adjudicated. The Court cannot allow an application seeking amendment unless there is sufficient reason to show that the party intending to seek amendment acted fairly. It ought to have justness in its favour while the application for seeking amendment is being adjudicated. In my considered view, in absence of any reason as to how and why the amendment sought is necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties, I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Trial Court and as such, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised in cases of jurisdictional error, apparent perversity, patent illegality or manifest injustice, which is not the situation here in this case. 11. For the aforesaid reason, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. 12. Consequent upon the dismissal of the writ petition, all pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.