JUDGMENT 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 02.05.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sabroom, South Tripura in case No. Civil Misc. 05 of 2022 arising out of TS 02 of 2016. 2. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court declined to allow the amendment of written statement proposed by the defendants mainly on the ground that the petition was filed at a very belated stage after the recording of the evidence of defendants' witnesses was complete and the defendants could not come out with any material to convince the Court that in spite of due diligence, they could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. By the proposed amendment, the defendants wanted to incorporate the particulars of some sale-deeds in their written statement. The trial Court disbelieved the statement of the defendants that they were unaware of those documents before the commencement of trial because it was clearly pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiffs jointly sold out some land to one Thakur Das Banik and Smt. Namita Saha and Dinabandhu Saha by executing those sale-deeds. The learned trial Court was viewed that since the plaint contained such pleadings, the defendants who were served with copies of the plaint at the initial stage of the suit, could have easily made necessary pleadings in this regard in their written statement. The trial Court also held that if the particulars given in the plaint were not enough for the defendants to collect those deeds, they could have applied to the Court for an order requiring the plaintiffs to produce those documents before the Court from their possession but, for the reasons best known to them, the defendants did not exercise such option. 3. Mr. D.K. Daschoudhury, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-petitioners contends that the amendment sought for is absolutely necessary for proper adjudication of the suit. According to learned counsel, the trial Court did not appreciate the fact that though the plaintiffs mentioned about the alleged sale transaction in their plaint, they did not mention the sale-deed number and other material particulars of those deeds. As a result, the defendants could not collect those sale-deeds at the appropriate time. It is submitted that soon after the defendants collected the sale-deeds, they moved the Court seeking amendment of the written statement. As a result, the defendants could not collect those sale-deeds at the appropriate time. It is submitted that soon after the defendants collected the sale-deeds, they moved the Court seeking amendment of the written statement. According to learned counsel, the said amendment would in no way change the nature and character of the suit and moreover, the amendment is absolutely necessary to bring those documents into evidence for a just decision of the case. Counsel, therefore, urges the Court to allow the defendants to amend their pleading by setting aside the impugned order. 4. Mr. Ratan Datta, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondents has raised serious objection against the contentions made by the counsel of the petitioners. Having referred to the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC for short), counsel submits that under the said proviso, 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 the trial. Counsel contends that the proviso to Rule 17 restricts the power of the Court in entertaining the amendment petition. It is contended by Mr. Datta, learned counsel that the defendants were allowed to amend their written statement several times before and after the issues were framed. Moreover, the plaintiffs categorically pleaded in their plaint that they entered into the sale transactions by executing sale-deeds and the names and particulars of the vendees were also mentioned in the plaint. Therefore, the defendants could have easily gathered the copies of those sale-deeds and they could have made necessary pleadings in their written statement. Counsel contends that the defendants have filed the amendment petition at a very belated stage only with a view to delay the progress of the case. According to Mr. Datta, learned counsel, the trial Court has given a reasoned order which does not call for any interference in this civil revision petition. Counsel, therefore, urges the Court to dismiss the petition. 5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. Perused the record. 6. According to Mr. Datta, learned counsel, the trial Court has given a reasoned order which does not call for any interference in this civil revision petition. Counsel, therefore, urges the Court to dismiss the petition. 5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. Perused the record. 6. As per the provision of Order VI, Rule 17 CPC, Court may permit either of the parties to amend the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, if in the opinion of the Court, such amendment is found necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties and for allowing such amendment after commencement of the trial, the Court has to come to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party seeking amendment could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. 7. The LCR indicates that the defendants in the present case were allowed to amend their written statement several times. The trial Court has rightly recorded that the plaintiffs never suppressed the factum of sale in their plaint. Rather, they gave the necessary particulars of such sale transaction in their plaint which clearly enabled the defendants to make an appropriate defence in their pleadings. The trial Court rightly found that even before entering into the trial or before the settlement of issues, the defendants could have availed the opportunities provided under Order XI CPC for production of the documents referred to in the plaint but, the defendants did not exercise any diligence at the appropriate time to bring those documents to record though they were not unaware of those documents. This apart, the defendants could not also convince the Court that such amendment even at the belated stage was absolutely necessary for deciding the real issue in controversy. The detailed order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) shows that he has minutely examined the issue and addressed all the contentions raised by the counsel of the parties. I find no error in the order. The trial Court has rightly rejected the amendment petition by assigning adequate reasons to the decision. Therefore, the order does not warrant any interference. Resultantly, the civil revision petition stands rejected. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial of the case as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. In terms of the above, the matter is disposed of. Therefore, the order does not warrant any interference. Resultantly, the civil revision petition stands rejected. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial of the case as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. In terms of the above, the matter is disposed of. Interim order(s), if any, stands vacated.