ORDER : PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J. Learned counsel for petitioners does not press this petition as against petitioner Nos.1 to 8 and 11 to 31, as he has not filed vakalath on behalf of them. Hence, this petition is filed in respect of petitioner Nos.9 and 10, who are defendant Nos.5 and 6 before the trial Court and they are inclined to continue this petition. 2. This petition is filed by petitioner Nos.9 and 10 aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.11.2025 passed on I.A.No.XXIII filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC in O.S.No.8735/2012 by the City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 3. In view of the learned counsel for petitioners not pressing this petition as against petitioner Nos.1 to 8 and 11 to 31, petitioner Nos.9 and 10 shall be treated as petitioner Nos.1 and 2. For the sake of brevity and easy understanding, they shall be referred to as defendant Nos.5 and 6 as per their status before the trial Court. 4. Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 5. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondent-plaintiff, as this Court is not inclined to show indulgence in this petition. 6. The suit came to be filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the defendants for partition and separate possession. Some of them are placed ex parte and some of them are contesting the original suit proceedings. Now the matter is set down for arguments. 7. When such being the case, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, which reads as under: “For the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit the Plaintiff/Applicant pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to permit an amendment by incorporating in plaint/prayer more particularly mentioned hereunder, in the interest of justice and equity. Amendment Sought for:- 1) To add in plaint para No.6. “6.a. In the course of evidence the PW-1 and defendants the plaintiff learnt that some portion of Item No.3 was alienated to third parties and due to efflux of time the questioning of alienation may not be possible and therefore the plaintiff is restricting her claim in respect of item No.3 to extent of 1 acre 7 1/2 guntas”. “6.a. In the course of evidence the PW-1 and defendants the plaintiff learnt that some portion of Item No.3 was alienated to third parties and due to efflux of time the questioning of alienation may not be possible and therefore the plaintiff is restricting her claim in respect of item No.3 to extent of 1 acre 7 1/2 guntas”. 2) To add in Schedule Item No.3 “Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.16, measuring 1 acre 7 1/2 guntas out of 4 acre 30 guntas, situated at Birjenahalli Village, Santhekallahalli Post, Kaiwara Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, bounded on East by : Shialaghatta Road West by : Sy No. 15 North by : Pillappa’s Land South by : Sy No. 16/2 And delete the “Agricultural land bearing Sy No.16, measuring 4 acre 30 guntas, situated at Birjenahalli Village, Santhekallahalli Post, Kaiwara Hobli, Chintamani Taluk, bounded on East by : Road leads to Shidlaghatta and land belongs to Reddeyappa West by : Inamthy of Gopalswamy Temple and land belongs to Marakka North by : Land belongs to Pillappa South by : Lands belongs to Doddavenkatarayappa and Pillappa” 8. The said application was objected to by defendant No.5 and 6 by filing a detailed statement of objections. 9. Upon hearing the contentions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for defendant Nos.5 and 6, the trial Court has allowed the said application for amendment by imposing a cost of Rs.2,000/- to defendant Nos.5 and 6. The trial Court has dealt with the matter more specifically at para-10 of the impugned order to show how the plaintiff has made out a case to incorporate the amendment despite the fact that the application is filed at the post trial stage, more specifically at the stage when the matter was posted for arguments. 10. It is no doubt true that an amendment cannot be allowed after the commencement of trial unless proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is met with proper justification and due diligence by the plaintiff or the party seeking amendment. As it is a settled proposition of law that any amendment that is sought after commencement of trial shall not be allowed only if there is due diligence shown that the plaintiff could not have carried out or brought the amendment and it was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff and he was unaware of the said amendment that was sought. 11. In the present case on hand, the plaintiff has justified and made due diligence as to why the amendment was not sought and carried out prior to the commencement of trial or at the belated stage of arguments. 12. It is also seen that the nature of the amendment does not change the cause of action or cause any injustice to the appeal. On the contrary, the plaintiff is now by way of the proposed amendment restricted her claim to an extent of 1 acre 7.1/2 guntas from 4 acres 30 guntas, thereby there is a reduction in the claim made by the plaintiff in the application and the amendment in the schedule to the plaint. Therefore, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason made out by defendant Nos.5 and 6 to call for interference or indulgence in the order passed by the trial Court. 13. It is also seen that pursuant to the amendment having been carried out, there is no additional issue framed and neither the plaintiff adduced any further evidence nor the defendant stepped into the witness box. Therefore, there is no alteration or injustice caused with regard to the evidence already existed or change of case of the plaintiff or that of the defendant except the fact that the plaintiff is now reducing her claim from 4 acres 30 guntas to 1 acre 7.1/2 quntas. Under the circumstances, the trial Court is fully justified in appreciating the contentions on the application and consequently allowing the same by imposing a cost of Rs.2,000/-. 14. It is relevant to extract Order VI Rule 17 of CPC as under: " 17. Amendment of pleadings.- 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: 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." 15. Under the circumstance, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court and the same deserves to be dismissed at the stage of preliminary hearing itself. 16. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER This petition is dismissed.