ORDER S.C. Sharma, J. - The petitioner before this Court who are the plaintiffs have filed this present petition being aggrieved by order dated 29/8/2019 passed in Civil Suit No. 39 A/2016. By the aforesaid order the trial Court has allowed the application preferred under Order 6 Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as well as the application preferred under Order 8 Rule 1 (Ka) (3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. 2. Facts of the case reveal that the plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit on 20/12/2006 and Written Statement was filed in the matter. Thereafter Issues were framed and the affidavit in support of the examination-in-chief was filed in August 2009 by the plaintiff. In the year 2019 an application for amendment was filed in the written statement. The defendants came up with a plea that they are in possession and they took a plea of adverse possession, however in the year 2019 by filing an amendment application, they came up with a plea that they were placed in possession on account of two agreements dated 1/6/1984 and 6/10/1986. It was stated by them that the agreements came to their knowledge in the year 2019 and the trial Court has allowed the amendment application and other application Order 8 Rule 1 (Ka) (3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 also. 3. The present case reflects that the manner and method in which the Civil Suits are being delayed with oblique and ulterior motive. After filling the written statement in respect of a Civil Suit of 2006, in the year 2019, amendment is being done. The plea which is now being sought to be raised is being totally inconsistent with the original plea raised and the same cannot be permitted to be raised by way of amendment of written statement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manohar Lal reported in [ 2017 (3) MPLJ 717 (SC)] and his contention is that amendment is permissible at any stage. 5. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment. Amendment is certainly permissible. However, facts of the present case are distinguishable. Manohar Lal reported in [ 2017 (3) MPLJ 717 (SC)] and his contention is that amendment is permissible at any stage. 5. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment. Amendment is certainly permissible. However, facts of the present case are distinguishable. In respect of a Civil Suit of the year 2006 amendment application has been filed in the year 2019 by raising a totally inconsistent plea with the original plea initially raised in the written statement. 6. After the amendment in the CPC and incorporation of the proviso in Rule 17 of Order 6, the discretion to amend the pleading at any stage of the proceedings has been restricted and the requirement of showing "due diligence" has been imposed before allowing amendment after the commencement of the trial. In view of the amended provision unless the court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial, no application for amendment can be allowed after the commencement of trial. The Supreme Court in the matter of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India Reported in 2005 AIR SCW 3827 while upholding the validity of the amendment in the CPC, has held that the proviso to some extent curtails the absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage, by observing as under :- "27. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code deals with amendment of pleadings. By Amendment Act 46 of 1999, this provision was deleted. It has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Now, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, such amendment could not have been sought earlier. The object is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial. There is no illegality in the provision." 7. In the matter of Ajendraprasadji N. Pande & Anr. vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & Ors. The object is to prevent frivolous applications which are filed to delay the trial. There is no illegality in the provision." 7. In the matter of Ajendraprasadji N. Pande & Anr. vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & Ors. reported in AIR 2007 SC 806 , the Court has expressed that the proviso has been introduced to strike a balance, by observing as under :- "33. Ultimately to strike a balance the Legislature applied its mind and re-introduced Rule 17 by Act 22 of 2002 w.e.f. 1.7.2002. It had a provision permitting amendment in the first part which said that the Court may at any stage permit amendment as described therein. But it also had a total bar introduced by a proviso which prevented any application for amendment to be allowed after the trial had commenced unless the Court came to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. It is this proviso which falls for consideration." 8. Supreme Court in the matter of Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha and Another reported in AIR 2009 SC 1433 while expressing about the limited jurisdiction to allow amendment in terms of the proviso has held :- " 14. It is the primal duty of the court to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. Only if such a condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to be allowed. However, proviso appended to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the court. It puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction. The court's jurisdiction, in a case of this nature is limited. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment of the plaint." 9. In the matter of J. Samuel and others Vs. Gattu Mahesh and others reported in (2012) 2 SCC 300 , the Supreme Court has noted that not only the two conditions i.e., No injustice should be done to the other side and necessity of amendment for determining the real question in controversy between the parties, must be satisfied but after the amendment and incorporation of proviso, the test of due diligence must also be satisfied. The Supreme Court in the matter of J. Samuel (supra) has held as under:- "16. As stated earlier, in the present case, the amendment application itself was filed only on 24-9-2010 after the arguments were completed and the matter was posted for judgment on 4-10-2010. On proper interpretation of the proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6, the party has to satisfy the court that it could not have discovered that ground which was pleaded by amendment, in spite of due diligence. No doubt, Rule 17 confers power on the court to amend the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings. However, the proviso restricts that power once the trial has commenced. Unless the court satisfies (sic itself) that there is a reasonable cause for allowing the amendment, normally the court has to reject such a request. 17. *********************** 18. The primary aim of the court is to try the case on its merit and ensure that the rule of justice prevails. For this the need is for the true facts of the case to be placed before the Court so that the court has access to all the relevant information in coming to its decision. Therefore, at times it is required to permit parties to amend their plaints. The court's discretion to grant permission for a party to amend his pleadings lies on two conditions, firstly, no injustice must be done to the other side and secondly, the amendment must be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. However, to balance the interests of the parties in pursuit of doing justice, the proviso has been added which clearly states 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." 19. Due diligence is the idea that reasonable investigation is necessary before certain kinds of relief are requested. Duly diligent efforts are a requirement for a party seeking to use the adjudicatory mechanism to attain an anticipated relief. An advocate representing someone must engage in due diligence to determine that the representations made are factually accurate and sufficient. Due diligence is the idea that reasonable investigation is necessary before certain kinds of relief are requested. Duly diligent efforts are a requirement for a party seeking to use the adjudicatory mechanism to attain an anticipated relief. An advocate representing someone must engage in due diligence to determine that the representations made are factually accurate and sufficient. The term "due diligence" is specifically used in the Code so as to provide a test for determining whether to exercise the discretion in situations of requested amendment after the commencement of trial. 20. A party requesting a relief stemming out of a claim is required to exercise due diligence and it is a requirement which cannot be dispensed with. The term "due diligence" determines the scope of a party's constructive knowledge, claim and is very critical to the outcome of the suit." 10. In the light of the aforesaid, especially in the light of the fact that the plea sought to be raised by way of amendment application, being totally inconsistent with the original plea raised in the case, the trial Court should not have permitted the defendants to raise such a plea by way of amendment after commencement of the trial, that too in the year 2019. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 29/08/2019 allowing the applications preferred by the defendants cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The present petition stands allowed and disposed of.