JUDGMENT : (Satyen Vaidya, J.) Respondent herein has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 9,92,528/- against the petitioner-defendant, which is pending on the files of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nurpur, District Kangra, bearing registration No. 769 of 2024, titled Dr. M.K. Sexena vs. Dr.Richa Sharma. 2. It is alleged in the plaint that the respondent herein is owner of M/s Saxena Hospital, Jassur, District Kangra, which he had let out to petitioner-defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,50,000/- w.e.f. 16.1.2019 for a period of five years. It is further averred that M/s Saxena Hospital was empanelled with Government of Himachal Pradesh. As one of the terms of lease, it was agreed that the petitioner-defendant would not indulge in any kind of activity, which might result in cancellation of empanelment of the hospital by the State Government. As per plaintiff, empanelment of the hospital was withdrawn due to acts of the petitioner-defendant, who had abandoned the premises on 16.2.2019 without payment of rent as per terms of the rent deed. On this count, rent of six months i.e. Rs. 9,00,000/- has been claimed. 3. Further, the respondent-plaintiff is stated to have been appointed as Medical Officer by the petitioner- defendant in M/s Saxena Hospital on a monthly salary of Rs. 50,000/-. It is alleged that the plaintiff worked for one and half months as Medical Officer in the said hospital but was not paid his remuneration. Thus, another sum of Rs. 75,000/- has been claimed by the plaintiff. In addition, the plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 17,528/- on account of reimbursement of the electricity consumption bills paid by him for the period, when the hospital remained in occupation of the petitioner-defendant. 4. The petitioner-defendant filed written statement. The averments made in the plaint have been denied. It has been specifically denied that any amount was payable by the petitioner-defendant to the respondent-plaintiff on account of rent, salary or electricity consumption charges. As a counter, the petitioner-defendant has alleged that the empanelment of the hospital was lost on account of the faults of the respondent-plaintiff, as the hospital lacked facility of sewerage treatment plant, which was a necessary condition of business and the ramp constructed for facilitating the patients, was also not as per specifications. Despite request, the respondent/plaintiff has refused to rectify the shortcomings. 5. Despite request, the respondent/plaintiff has refused to rectify the shortcomings. 5. Issues have been framed and the respondent- plaintiff has already led his evidence. After the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner-defendant, an application for amendment of written statement came to be filed by the petitioner-defendant. It was averred that despite due diligence, the fact that the petitioner-defendant had terminated the rent deed dated 8.1.2019 by issuing a legal notice dated 16.2.2019, dispatched on 22.3.2019 through her Advocate Ms. Deepa Sharma could not be incorporated in the original written statement. According to the petitioner-defendant, the amendment sought in the written statement was necessary for proper adjudication of the real controversy in dispute and hence prayed for amendment of preliminary objection No.4 and also para-4 of the written statement on merits. 6. The application was contested. Learned trial Court has dismissed the application vide impugned order, hence this petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record carefully. 8. The application of the petitioner-defendant for amendment of written statement has primarily been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner-defendant had failed to disclose any material which could be sufficient to hold that the petitioner-defendant was prevented from incorporating the alleged fact in the original written statement despite due diligence. 9. The application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC before the learned trial Court has been placed on record as Annexure P-3. Its content reveals that except for mentioning of inadvertence despite exercise of due diligence to incorporate the fact in original written statement, there is nothing to suggest as to what were the circumstances, which prevented the petitioner- defendant in raising said defence at initial stage or at least before commencement of trial. Merely making a mention of term “exercise of due diligence” is not sufficient. In order to enable the Court to exercise its jurisdiction, party seeking to amend pleadings after commencement of trial has to disclose foundational facts from which inference of availability of sufficient reason for not seeking amendment at appropriate stage despite due diligence, could be drawn. 10. Merely making a mention of term “exercise of due diligence” is not sufficient. In order to enable the Court to exercise its jurisdiction, party seeking to amend pleadings after commencement of trial has to disclose foundational facts from which inference of availability of sufficient reason for not seeking amendment at appropriate stage despite due diligence, could be drawn. 10. Further, the conduct of the petitioner-defendant has been remiss and negligent, as is evident from the fact that while incorporating the proposed amendment in preliminary objection No.4 in the application for amendment, again there is no mention about the termination of rent deed by the defendant vide notice dated 16.2.2019, sent by the petitioner-defendant through Advocate Ms Deepa Sharma, which makes the bonafide of the petitioner-defendant doubtful. 11. In result, no ground for interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.