JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, prayed that petition may be accepted and impugned Orders both dated 21.06.2023 Annexure P-6 may be ordered to be quashed and set aside and consequently the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure being C.M.A. No. 93/6 of 2022, CNR: HPS 1070003662023, Registration No. 183/2023 (Filing No. 366 of 2023) and application under Order 8 Rules 1- A of the Code of Civil Procedure C.M.A. No. 94/6 of 2022, CNR: HPS 1070003672023, Registration No. 184/2023 (Filing No. 367 of 2023) may be ordered to be dismissed with costs throughout.” 2. When this case was taken up on 18.07.2023, the following order was passed:- “Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition be treated to have been filed only against the order dated 21.06.2023, passed by the learned Trial Court allowing the application moved by the defendants, under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. His statement is taken on record. Accordingly, the present petition shall be treated to have been filed only against the aforesaid order. The petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law against the other order dated 21.06.2023, passed by the learned Trial Court allowing the defendants’ application under Order 8 Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Heard. Issue notice presently confined to respondents No.1 (a) to 1 (c) and respondent No.2, returnable for 21.08.2023, on taking steps within five days. Till the next date of hearing, further proceedings in Civil Suit No.22/1 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P, shall remain stayed. List on 21.08.2023.” 3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner has filed a suit against the contesting defendants as well as proforma defendants for declaration, permanent injunction and possession. This suit was filed on 23.04.2015. Written statement thereto was filed by the original defendants on 03.11.2015. Replication to the written statement was filed on 09.12.2015. Issues in the matter were framed on 29.04.2017. Thereafter, the plaintiffs led evidence and closed the same on 07.05.2018. Thereafter the case was listed for recording of the evidence of the defendants. This suit was filed on 23.04.2015. Written statement thereto was filed by the original defendants on 03.11.2015. Replication to the written statement was filed on 09.12.2015. Issues in the matter were framed on 29.04.2017. Thereafter, the plaintiffs led evidence and closed the same on 07.05.2018. Thereafter the case was listed for recording of the evidence of the defendants. The same was recorded and closed on 05.11.2019. The matter thereafter was listed for the purpose of arguments on 26. 02.2020 onwards. At the stage of arguments, the contesting respondents herein filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, copy thereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P-5. This application was filed on 27.09.2022. It was averred in the application that original defendant No.1 Shri Sunder Singh was no more and after his death the applicants succeeded Shri Sunder Singh. They changed the counsel who was engaged by their father to defend the case. Thereafter, in the course of preparing arguments, it came to the knowledge of the applicants that due to “inadvertence certain mistakes have been left while drafting the written statement by the counsel”. On this basic premise, the amendment to the written statement was sought by the applicants in the terms proposed in the application. The prayer was opposed by the non-applicants/plaintiffs. 4. Vide impugned order dated 21.06.2023, the application was allowed by the learned Trial Court by holding that the proposed amendments demonstrated that they were just to explain already pleaded facts and to rectify the clerical errors and no prejudice was going to be caused to the opposite party by permitting amendment. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed this petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as documents appended therewith. 7. Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code provides as under:- “Amendment to Pleading-1. the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. 2. the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. 2. Provided 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.” 8. After the amendment was carried out in the relevant provisions in the year 2002, in terms of the proviso appended with Rule 17 of Order 6, now no application for amendment is to be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 9. Keeping in view the statutory provisions, I have carefully gone through the contents of the application which was filed by the contesting respondents under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. 10. In this application, there is not even a whisper qua “due diligence” and in fact the prayer for amendment is solitary on the ground that after the change of counsel and in the course of the preparation of the arguments, it came to the knowledge of the applicant that due to inadvertence certain mistakes stood left while drafting the written statement. 11. It is settled law that the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code are to forward the cause of justice and not to give an opportunity to the parties to fill up the lacunau in their case. 12. The provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code confer the power upon a Court at any stage of the proceedings to allow either party to alter or amend the pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code confer the power upon a Court at any stage of the proceedings to allow either party to alter or amend the pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. However, before this power vested in the Court is exercised by it, it has to satisfy itself as to whether the party seeking such amendment, despite “due diligence”, could not have raised the matter earlier which was now being intended to be incorporated by way of amendment. 13. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Pandit Malhari Mahale vs. Monika Pandit Mahale and others, (2020) 11 Supreme Court Cases 549, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold as under:- “8. There being no finding by the Court that the Court is satisfied in spite of due diligence, the party could not introduce amendment before commencement of the trial, the order of the trial Judge is unsustainable. The High Court has not adverted to the above aspect of the matter. In view of aforesaid we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court as well as as of the Civil Judge, the amendment application stands dismissed.” 14. In terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is the primal duty of the Court to assess and record its satisfaction that what was being intended to be incorporated in the pleadings, could not have been earlier done by the parties despite “due diligence”. 15. It is also necessary to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Rajesh Kumar Yadav and another vs. Ganesh Singh Yadav, (2022) SCC OnLine Delhi 2445, in which Hon’ble Delhi High Court has been pleased to hold that a plea of ‘due diligence’ is antithetical to a plea of ‘error or negligence’ on the part of the counsel and they cannot cohabit as one destroys the other. 16. In this background, if one peruses the impugned order, as already observed by me hereinabove, the same on the face of it is a perverse order. 17. 16. In this background, if one peruses the impugned order, as already observed by me hereinabove, the same on the face of it is a perverse order. 17. Learned Court below has not cared to examine the application preferred by the contesting respondents seeking amendment of the written statement through the prism of provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. There is no satisfaction recorded in the impugned order by the learned Court below that what was being intended to be incorporated by way of amendment, could not have been earlier incorporated by the party despite due diligence. The only observation made by the learned Trial Court that the proposed amendments showed that they were just to explain the already pleaded facts and to rectify the clerical error, was not enough to have had allowed and application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying for amendment of the written statement and that too, at the fag end of the trial. In fact, learned Trial Court also erred in not appreciating that as the applicant had entered into the foot steps of his predecessor-in-interest, he otherwise also was bound by the written statement or response filed to the plaint by their predecessor-in-interest and amendment could not have been granted on his asking as has been done in the present case by the learned Trial Court, on the ground that there was a change in the counsel and in the course of preparation of the arguments, it was discovered that there were certain mistakes committed by the counsel in the course of drafting of the earlier petition. This is also not in spirit with the provisions of Order 22, Rule 4 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code. This Court is not oblivious to the fact that a liberal approach has to be adopted while considering an application seeking amendment in written statement, but then this liberal approach cannot per se do away with the principle of “due diligence”. 18. Accordingly, in view of the above observation, this petition is allowed. The impugned order, i.e. order passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Rajgarh, Camp at Sarahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., i.e. order dated 21.06.2023, passed in C.M.A. No.93/6 of 2022, filed in Civil Suit No.22/1 of 2015, is set aside. 19. 18. Accordingly, in view of the above observation, this petition is allowed. The impugned order, i.e. order passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Rajgarh, Camp at Sarahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., i.e. order dated 21.06.2023, passed in C.M.A. No.93/6 of 2022, filed in Civil Suit No.22/1 of 2015, is set aside. 19. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.