ORDER 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter was taken up for final disposal. 2. Upon perusal of the record and after consideration of the arguments advanced by both the sides, it is noted that the respondent-plaintiff had filed a civil suit of eviction against the petitioner-defendant, claiming him to be a tenant on 01.06.2004. After framing of the issues, the Trial Court eventually decided the suit on 20.12.2016 and issued the decree against the petitionerdefendant. Upon appeal, the appellate court, vide order dated 16.02.2017, remanded the matter back with direction to rehear the case within a period of one month and the matter was listed for final hearing at that stage. Thereafter, the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the reply of the original Civil Suit. The application of the petitioner-defendant came to be dismissed by way of impugned order dated 20.05.2017. 3. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned is against the true spirit of Order 6 Rule 17, as the trust in question was unregistered. The petitioner-defendant had procured the electricity connection document only after filing the reply to the suit and as soon as the new fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner-defendant, the application for amendment of reply was filed. Learned counsel contends that the Trial Court had rejected the application mechanically, without application of mind and the application ought to have been allowed in the interest of justice. 4. Upon perusal of the order dated 20.05.2017, it is observed that the learned Court below has passed a well-reasoned speaking order. The learned Trial Court observed that: Firstly, as per directions of appellate Court, the matter was to be heard at the stage of final arguments and had to be decided within a period of one month. Secondly, no cogent documentary evidence was file by the petitioner-defendant pertaining to the constitution of the Trust in question; merely an electric connection document procured through RTI was presented without necessary clarification or explanation. Thirdly, that the property in question is owned by the respondent-plaintiff is an accepted and undisputed fact. 5. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court has passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of material aspects, arrived at a logical conclusion. Thirdly, that the property in question is owned by the respondent-plaintiff is an accepted and undisputed fact. 5. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court has passed a well-reasoned speaking order and after consideration of material aspects, arrived at a logical conclusion. This Court is in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the Court below. It is well settled that powers under Article 227 must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate Courts and Tribunals within the bound of their authority. There is no violation of principles of natural justice and no palpable error has crept in the order of the learned Trial Court, warranting interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.