JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. Petitioner and respondent herein, are defendant and plaintiff in Civil Suit pending in the trial Court and for convenience, hereinafter, they shall be referred in their capacity in the Civil Suit i.e. defendant and plaintiff respectively. 2. Defendant has preferred present petition assailing impugned order dated 20.03.2020, passed by learned Civil Judge, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P., in an application bearing CMA No. 43-K/6 of 2020 in Case No. 96-K/1 of 11, titled as Tara Dutt v. Gama Ram, filed by the defendant, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), for amendment of written statement. By way of the said application, defendant had sought permission for amendment of written statement filed by him. In fact, as evident from the impugned order and also submissions made by learned counsel for the defendant, defendant had proposed to replace his written statement entirely for denying title of the plaintiff on the suit premises. 3. Case of the defendant is that after 11.02.2020, defendant came to know that plaintiff is not owner of the suit premises and thus, he had filed the application for amendment of written statement to bring on record peculiar circumstances alongwith defence that Civil Suit was not maintainable. According to him, he had done it in sequel to judgment dated 06.08.2019 passed by this High Court in RSA No. 77 of 2017, titled as Gama Ram v. Tara Dutt. 4. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that for having belated knowledge about the fact, going to the root of the case and disentitling the plaintiff from filing suit, defendant has every right to amend the written statement and to withdraw his earlier admissions made in the written statement and, thus, entitling him for filing fresh written statement. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of record, pointed out by the defendant in the petition or otherwise in submissions of learned counsel for the defendant committed by the trial Court in passing the impugned order. He further submits that trial Court has neither committed any illegality, irregularity nor any perversity in passing the impugned order, rather trial Court has appreciated material on record in right perspective and, thus, no interference in the impugned order is warranted at this stage. He further submits that trial Court has neither committed any illegality, irregularity nor any perversity in passing the impugned order, rather trial Court has appreciated material on record in right perspective and, thus, no interference in the impugned order is warranted at this stage. He further submits that RSA No. 77 of 2017 was decided on 06.08.2019 with direction to the trial Court to make an endeavour to decide Civil Suit on or before 31.03.2020. However, defendant, in order to delay the conclusion of the Civil Suit, on the basis of plea already taken as defence, has filed an application for amendment of written statement which was decided on 20.03.2020 and case was listed for arguments on 30.03.2020, whereas present petition has been filed in September 2020 and in case Lockdown in the entire Country, on account of COVID-19, is taken into consideration then also, this Court is working w.e.f. 16.04.2020 regularly and even Lockdown was lifted w.e.f. 01.06.2020, but defendant did not assail the order passed on 20.03.2020, till September 2020 and, thus, defendant has approached this Court at this belated stage only with one motive i.e. to delay the conclusion of the Civil Suit. 6. Undoubtedly, as also recorded by learned Civil Judge, amendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage of the case, if it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real controversy, but there is a rider that if trial has commenced, then no amendment shall be allowed unless Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence parties could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial. 7. It is an admitted fact that Civil Suit is at argument stage. Evidence by both parties has been led after completion of pleadings and framing of issues. 8. Learned Civil Judge, in his findings, has recorded that in the cross-examination of P.W. 1 (plaintiff), a question was put on behalf of the defendant that plaintiff was not owner of the premises in question. Correctness of this fact has not been questioned. Thus, learned Civil Judge has rightly concluded, that plea of the defendant that he came to know that plaintiff was not owner of the premises in question, only on 11.02.2020, is false. Correctness of this fact has not been questioned. Thus, learned Civil Judge has rightly concluded, that plea of the defendant that he came to know that plaintiff was not owner of the premises in question, only on 11.02.2020, is false. Therefore, date of knowledge of the fact, on the basis of which amendment has been proposed or filing of fresh written statement by withdrawing earlier written statement is being proposed, is not as claimed by the defendant, but such knowledge to the defendant was at the very beginning i.e. at the time of recording of evidence of the plaintiff and, therefore, plea of the defendant that despite due diligence he could not raise such issue earlier, is not sustainable. 9. Plea of the defendant that this fact came to his notice only after closure of the evidence has also been found false by the trial Court for the reason that defendant while appearing as D.W. 1, during his cross-examination, has admitted in unequivocal terms that he had taken premises in question on rent from the plaintiff. Therefore, cm this count also, plea of the defendant has been found false. 10. Defendant has not come to the Court with clean hands and the ground taken by him to justify his delayed application for amendment is falsified from the record of the suit. 11. In response to a specific query put to learned counsel for the defendant to point out any discrepancy or mistake in recording of facts by the trial Court in the impugned order which may be contrary to record of the suit, learned counsel was not able to point out anything. 12. It is stated that suit has been filed by the plaintiff for possession. Plaintiff is claiming himself landlord and defendant as tenant. 13. Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'Evidence Act') provides that no tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property. Defendant, in his cross-examination, as recorded in the impugned order by learned Civil Judge, has admitted that he had taken premises in question on rent from the plaintiff. The said tenancy is continuing. Section 116 of the Evidence Act is part of Chapter-VIII which provides estoppel. Defendant, in his cross-examination, as recorded in the impugned order by learned Civil Judge, has admitted that he had taken premises in question on rent from the plaintiff. The said tenancy is continuing. Section 116 of the Evidence Act is part of Chapter-VIII which provides estoppel. In view of provisions of this Section, learned Civil Judge has rightly concluded that defendant is precluded from denying title of the plaintiff to the premises in question, particularly for defendant's admission. 14. No other point urged or agitated. 15. In view of above discussion, I find that no illegality, irregularity or perversity has been committed by learned Civil Judge in passing the impugned order. For want of valid reason, no interference is warranted in the impugned order. 16. Considering entire facts and circumstances, petition is dismissed, but by taking a lenient view no cost is being imposed upon the defendant. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.