JUDGMENT : Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This civil misc. application has been filed against the order dated 05.07.2023 passed by the learned Rajasthan Waqf Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity, "the learned Tribunal") in Suit No.48/2019 (CIS No.48/2019) whereby, an application filed by the applicant/plaintiff (for brevity, "the plaintiff") under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC has been dismissed. 2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction against the non-applicants/defendants (for brevity, "defendants"). During its pendency, an application dated 01.06.2023 was filed by the plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC seeking to incorporate the fact that the defendant No.1 has obtained a patta in his favour from the defendant No.2 of the land belonging to the Waqf Board making false statement. The application has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 05.07.2023, impugned herein. 3. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the learned Tribunal did not appreciate that it had come to know of the facts sought to be incorporated by way of the amendment, during pendency of the suit. He submitted that the defendant No.1 obtained patta of the waqf property in his favour from the defendant No.2 pleading false facts. He, therefore, prays that civil misc. application be allowed, the order dated 05.07.2023 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by it under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC be allowed. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. While dismissing the application, the learned Tribunal has observed that the plaintiff has moved the application seeking amendment in the plaint at the stage when the matter was fixed for final arguments after completion of evidence of the respective parties. It is also observed therein that patta in favour of the defendant No.1 was issued by the defendant No.2 on 28.08.2019 and the suit has been filed on 17.09.2019, i.e., after issuance of the patta; but, no reason was assigned for delay in filing the application. It is also observed therein that patta in favour of the defendant No.1 was issued by the defendant No.2 on 28.08.2019 and the suit has been filed on 17.09.2019, i.e., after issuance of the patta; but, no reason was assigned for delay in filing the application. This Court has gone through the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC and does not find a whisper of averment therein that as to when the plaintiff came to know of the issuance of patta dated 28.08.2019 in favour of the defendant except a bald statement that it was during pendency of the suit, and as to why the application has been filed with inordinate delay i.e. at the stage when the case is fixed for final arguments. 6. In view thereof and in the backdrop of the proviso of Order 6, Rule 17 CPC which provides 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, in the considered opinion of this court, the learned Tribunal did not err in dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff. 7. The civil misc. application is dismissed being devoid of any merit.