ORDER : 1. The petitioners/plaintiffs are before this Court calling in question an order dated 23-04-2025 passed by the XXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on I.A.No.XVI in O.S.No.6773 of 2011 rejecting the application filed by the petitioners seeking amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - The averment in the petition is that a partition deed was entered into between M.Kadarappa and his children on 24-03-1961. Under the partition deed, the suit schedule property fell into the share of father of the plaintiffs 1 to 13. On 01-02-2007 all the plaintiffs/petitioners herein executed a joint development agreement in favour of plaintiff No.16 M/s Adarsh Developers, a partnership firm in respect of land in Sy.Nos. 60/4 and 61 at Yediyur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. In furtherance of the joint development agreement, a supplementary agreement was entered into between plaintiffs 1 to 15 and plaintiff No.16 in respect of the same survey numbers. Alleging certain disturbances from the defendants, the plaintiffs institute a suit in O.S.No.6773 of 2011 seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioners. The defendants file their written statement in the suit on 28-01-2012. The concerned Court, then frames issues on 04-01-2013. 12 years passed by. The matter is set at the stage of final arguments after conclusion of evidence. The plaintiffs then come up with an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint in I.A.No.16. The defendants object to it by filing objections. The concerned Court, in terms of the impugned order, dismisses the application filed by the plaintiffs. The dismissal of the application is what brings the plaintiffs to this Court in the subject petition. 3. Heard Sri D.L.Jagadeesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Vaibhav Malimath, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.1. 4. The learned senior counsel Sri D.L.Jagadeesh appearing for the petitioners would contend that the change that is sought by way of amendment to the plaint and the prayer, is change in survey number. The reasons rendered in the application were that due to oversight Sy.No.61 is mentioned in para 2 of the plaint and schedule to the plaint. The same is as found in the joint development agreement. The reasons rendered in the application were that due to oversight Sy.No.61 is mentioned in para 2 of the plaint and schedule to the plaint. The same is as found in the joint development agreement. However, there is difference in measurement to the tune of 30,000 sq. ft. in Sy.Nos. 60/4 and 61. This is sought to be corrected by the application so filed. The learned senior counsel submits that what the defendants claimed in their written statement is site No.4118 which is carved out of Sy.No.60/4. Therefore, the present dispute is only in respect of Sy.No.60/4 and as such amendment was sought for deletion of Sy.No.61 in the plaint schedule. He would contend that no prejudice would be caused to any party if Sy.No.61 stood deleted from the schedule to the suit. He would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84 and Ganesh Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 256 to buttress his submission that the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC cannot summarily be rejected, if it is not going to change nature of the suit. 5. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Vaibhav Malimath, appearing for the 1 st respondent/1 st defendant would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that written statement was filed in year 2012. Evidence is led on all the issues qua the suit schedule property which includes Sy.No.60/4 and 61. 13 years have gone after filing of the written statement. The matter is set at the stage of final arguments. At that stage, the application is filed seeking amendment to the plaint, on the ground that amendment is to be carried out in the light of the written statement filed by the defendants. The learned counsel would contend that the written statement was not filed yesterday. It is filed 13 years ago. He would contend that parties to the lis either the plaintiffs or the defendants have to exercise due diligence for amendment of pleadings before framing of issues or the evidence as the case would be. Due diligence in the case at hand has been completely ignored by the petitioners. It is filed 13 years ago. He would contend that parties to the lis either the plaintiffs or the defendants have to exercise due diligence for amendment of pleadings before framing of issues or the evidence as the case would be. Due diligence in the case at hand has been completely ignored by the petitioners. Such ignorance in law cannot give them benefit of filing an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, when the final arguments in the case at hand was got over, after 14 years of institution of the suit and after 13 years of filing of written statement. He would seek dismissal of the petition contending that the order of the concerned Court would not warrant any interference. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The aforenarrated facts, link in the chain of events and dates are all a matter of record. The issue in the lis is with regard to an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC seeking amendment of the plaint qua schedule. Order VI Rule 17 reads as follows: ” 17. Amendment of pleadings .—The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading 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 .” (Emphasis supplied) Order VI Rule 17 deals with amendment of pleadings. It allows grant of relief to a party to alter or amend his pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, provided the amendment is necessary to determine the real issues in controversy between the parties. Order VI Rule 17 was subject matter of misuse by filing applications at any stage of the proceedings and the proceedings were being dragged on. Therefore, the legislature introduced the proviso. The proviso limited the power of the Court to allow the application for amendment of the plaint at any stage of the proceedings. Order VI Rule 17 was subject matter of misuse by filing applications at any stage of the proceedings and the proceedings were being dragged on. Therefore, the legislature introduced the proviso. The proviso limited the power of the Court to allow the application for amendment of the plaint at any stage of the proceedings. This was initially omitted by Act 46 of 1998. Noticing the fact that it had created chaos, to strike a balance, the proviso was re-introduced by Act 22 of 2002 with effect from 01-07-2002. This re-insertion borne consideration at the hands of the Apex Court. This is considered by the Apex Court in the case of Kailash Vs. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480 and Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji, (2006) 12 SCC 1 . Both these judgments bear consideration of the Apex Court in a subsequent judgment in the case of Vidyabai v. Padmalatha, (2009) 2 SCC 409 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: “14. In Kailash Vs. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480 this Court held: (SCC pp. 490-91, para 13) “13. At this point the question arises: when does the trial of an election petition commence or what is the meaning to be assigned to the word ‘trial’ in the context of an election petition? In a civil suit, the trial begins when issues are framed and the case is set down for recording of evidence. All the proceedings before that stage are treated as proceedings preliminary to trial or for making the case ready for trial. As held by this Court in several decided cases, this general rule is not applicable to the trial of election petitions as in the case of election petitions, all the proceedings commencing with the presentation of the election petition and up to the date of decision therein are included within the meaning of the word ‘trial’.” 15. We may notice that in Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. (2006) 12 SCC 1 this Court noticed the decision of this Court in Kailash (2005) 4 SCC 480 to hold: (Ajendraprasadji case (2006) 12 SCC 1 , SCC p. 13, paras 35-36) “35. We may notice that in Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. (2006) 12 SCC 1 this Court noticed the decision of this Court in Kailash (2005) 4 SCC 480 to hold: (Ajendraprasadji case (2006) 12 SCC 1 , SCC p. 13, paras 35-36) “35. By Act 46 of 1999, there was a sweeping amendment by which Rules 17 and 18 were wholly omitted so that an amendment itself was not permissible, although sometimes effort was made to rely on Section 148 for extension of time for any purpose. 36 . Ultimately, to strike a balance the legislature applied its mind and reintroduced Rule 17 by Act 22 of 2002 w.e.f. 1-7-2002. It had a provision permitting amendment in the first part which said that the court may at any stage permit amendment as described therein. But it also had a total bar introduced by a proviso which prevented any application for amendment to be allowed after the trial had commenced unless the court came to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. It is this proviso which falls for consideration .” This Court also noticed Salem Advocate Bar Assn. v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 to hold: (Ajendraprasadji Case (2006) 12 SCC 1 , SCC pp. 14-15, paras 41-43) “41. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the respective Senior Counsel appearing for the respective parties. We have also carefully perused the pleadings, annexures, various orders passed by the courts below, the High Court and of this Court. In the counter-affidavit filed by Respondent 1, various dates of hearing with reference to the proceedings taken before the Court has been elaborately spelt out which in our opinion, would show that the appellant is precluded by the proviso to rule in question from seeking relief by asking for amendment of his pleadings. 42. It is to be noted that the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC have been substantially amended by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 2002. 43 . Under the proviso no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless in spite of due diligence, the matter could not be raised before the commencement of trial. 42. It is to be noted that the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC have been substantially amended by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 2002. 43 . Under the proviso no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless in spite of due diligence, the matter could not be raised before the commencement of trial. It is submitted, that after the trial of the case has commenced, no application of pleading shall be allowed unless the above requirement is satisfied. The amended Order 6 Rule 17 was due to the recommendation of the Law Commission since Order ( sic Rule) 17, as it existed prior to the amendment, was invoked by parties interested in delaying the trial. That to shorten the litigation and speed up disposal of suits, amendment was made by the amending Act, 1999, deleting Rule 17 from the Code. This evoked much controversy/hesitation all over the country and also leading to boycott of courts and, therefore, by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002, provision has been restored by recognising the power of the court to grant amendment, however, with certain limitation which is contained in the new proviso added to the rule. The details furnished below will go to show as to how the facts of the present case show that the matters which are sought to be raised by way of amendment by the appellants were well within their knowledge on their court case, and manifests the absence of due diligence on the part of the appellants disentitling them to relief .” The ratio in Kailash (2005) 4 SCC 480 was reiterated stating that the trial is deemed to commence when the issues are settled and the case is set down for recording of evidence. 16. Reliance, however, has been placed by Ms Suri on Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh , (2006) 6 SCC 498 wherein it was opined: (SCC pp. 504-05, para 17) “17. Before we part with this order, we may also notice that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC provides that amendment of pleadings shall not be allowed when the trial of the suit has already commenced. For this reason, we have examined the records and find that, in fact, the trial has not yet commenced. It appears from the records that the parties have yet to file their documentary evidence in the suit. For this reason, we have examined the records and find that, in fact, the trial has not yet commenced. It appears from the records that the parties have yet to file their documentary evidence in the suit. From the record, it also appears that the suit was not on the verge of conclusion as found by the High Court and the trial court. That apart, commencement of trial as used in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 in the Code of Civil Procedure must be understood in the limited sense as meaning the final hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of arguments. As noted hereinbefore, parties are yet to file their documents, we do not find any reason to reject the application for amendment of the written statement in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which confers wide power and unfettered discretion on the court to allow an amendment of the written statement at any stage of the proceedings.” It is not an authority for the proposition that the trial would not be deemed to have commenced on the date of first hearing. In that case, as noticed hereinbefore, the documents were yet to be filed and, therefore, it was held that the trial did not commence. … …. … 19. It is the primal duty of the court to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. Only if such a condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to be allowed. However, proviso appended to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code restricts the power of the court. It puts an embargo on exercise of its jurisdiction. The court's jurisdiction, in a case of this nature is limited. Thus, unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged therein, is found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment of the plaint.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that it is the primary duty of the Court to decide as to whether such an amendment is necessary to decide the real dispute between the parties. Only if such condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to be allowed. The proviso restricts the power of the Court and puts an embargo on the exercise of its jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court’s jurisdiction is now limited. Only if such condition is fulfilled, the amendment is to be allowed. The proviso restricts the power of the Court and puts an embargo on the exercise of its jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court’s jurisdiction is now limited. Unless there is jurisdictional fact in any amendment, the Court will have no jurisdiction to allow the amendment to the plaint. 8. The Apex Court again, in the case of J. Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh, (2012) 2 SCC 300 , elaborating the term ‘due diligence’ has held as follows: “…. …. …. 20. A party requesting a relief stemming out of a claim is required to exercise due diligence and it is a requirement which cannot be dispensed with. The term “due diligence” determines the scope of a party's constructive knowledge, claim and is very critical to the outcome of the suit .” (Emphasis supplied) Again, the Apex Court in the case of Pandit Malhari Mahale v. Monika Pandit Mahale , (2020) 11 SCC 549 has held as follows: “ …. …. …. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that evidence had already begun and in view of Order 6 Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the amendment could not have been considered unless the Court returned a finding that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.” (Emphasis supplied) On the bedrock of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, the travel of the suit is necessary to be noticed. As observed hereinabove, the suit is filed for permanent injunction. It is instituted on 16-09-2011 with a particular schedule in the plaint. The schedule as found in the plaint reads as follows: “ SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the residential converted property bearing Sy.Nos. 60/4 and 61 admeasuring 30,000 sq.ft. of land, situated at Yediyur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore and bounded on the East by - Private property West by - K.R.Road North by - Private property South by - Private property.” The schedule contains two survey numbers viz., Sy.Nos. 60/4 and 61 together measuring 30,000 sq.ft. The defendants filed their written statement bringing out true facts as to how the claim of the plaintiffs is untenable. The written statement is filed on 28-01-2012. 60/4 and 61 together measuring 30,000 sq.ft. The defendants filed their written statement bringing out true facts as to how the claim of the plaintiffs is untenable. The written statement is filed on 28-01-2012. On the basis of the pleadings in the plaint and the written statement, issues are framed by the concerned Court on 4-01-2013. 12 years passed by after framing of issues, 14 years after filing of the suit and 13 years after filing of the written statement. The matter is posted for final arguments. Plaintiffs and the defendants had completed their arguments. The matter was posted for reply of the plaintiffs. It is at that stage the present application comes to be filed seeking amendment of the plaint by which they seek deletion of Sy.No.61 from the plaint schedule. 9. The obfuscation in the case is with regard to 30,000 sq. ft. jointly found in Sy.Nos.60/4 and 61 and continues. The contention now is that Sy.No.60/4 itself has 30,000 sq.ft. Therefore, the amendment to the measurement in the plaint would undoubtedly cause prejudice to the defendants. The learned counsel for the defendants has placed on record a suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.7943 of 2003 which pertained to Sy.No.60/4 and the present suit is filed for both Sy.Nos. 60/4 and 61. Therefore, it is a case where it would undoubtedly to some extent change the nature of the suit. Therefore, the plaintiffs ought to have exercised due diligence prior to filing of the suit. Now at the fag end when the matter is posted for reply arguments of the plaintiffs, the application comes to be filed. In terms of the order passed by the concerned Court and the statement of objections, the real question in controversy relate to both Sy.Nos. 60/4 and 61. Therefore the application seeking amendment of schedule to the plaint prima facie cause prejudice to the defendants. Above all, it is preferred after 14 years of instituting the suit. 10. The Apex Court, in its latest judgment, in the case of Basavaraj v. Indira , (2024) 3 SCC 705 holds that burden of proving due diligence is upon the party who seeks amendment. The Apex Court has held as follows: “…. ….. …. 10. Above all, it is preferred after 14 years of instituting the suit. 10. The Apex Court, in its latest judgment, in the case of Basavaraj v. Indira , (2024) 3 SCC 705 holds that burden of proving due diligence is upon the party who seeks amendment. The Apex Court has held as follows: “…. ….. …. 10. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17CPC 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 case in hand, this is not even the pleaded case of Respondents 1 and 2 before the trial court in the application for amendment that due diligence was there at the time of filing of the suit in not seeking relief prayed for by way of amendment. All what was pleaded was oversight. The same cannot be accepted as a ground to allow any amendment in the pleadings at the fag end of the trial especially when admittedly the facts were in knowledge of Respondents 1 and 2-plaintiffs. 11. The relevant paragraphs of the application seeking amendment of the plaint are reproduced hereunder: “2. That, due to oversight and by mistake the plaintiff was unable to sought relief declaration of decree as null and void and unable to pay required court fee some unavoidable circumstances and the proposed amendment is very essential for deciding the matter in dispute. *** 4. That, if the proposed amendment is allowed no prejudice will be cause to the other side, on the other hand if it is not allowed then the deponent will be put to great loss and will also leads multiplicity of litigations. Hence it is just and proper to allow the proposed amendment to meet the ends of justice.” (sic) 12. This Court in M. Revanna v. Anjanamma, (2019) 4 SCC 332 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 338 opined that an application for amendment may be rejected if it seeks to introduce totally different, new and inconsistent case or changes the fundamental character of the suit. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC prevents an application for amendment after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence the party could not have raised the issue. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC prevents an application for amendment after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that despite due diligence the party could not have raised the issue. The burden is on the party seeking amendment after commencement of trial to show that in spite of due diligence such amendment could not be sought earlier . It is not a matter of right. Para 7 thereof is extracted below : (SCC p. 335) “7. Leave to amend may be refused if it introduces a totally different, new and inconsistent case, or challenges the fundamental character of the suit. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17CPC virtually prevents an application for amendment of pleadings from being 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 the trial. The proviso, to an extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. Therefore, the burden is on the person who seeks an amendment after commencement of the trial to show that in spite of due diligence, such an amendment could not have been sought earlier. There cannot be any dispute that an amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and under all circumstances. Though normally amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the court needs to take into consideration whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide and whether the amendment causes such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. Initially, the suit was filed for partition and separate possession. By way of amendment, relief of declaration of the compromise decree being null and void was also sought. The same would certainly change the nature of the suit, which may be impermissible. 14. This Court in Revajeetu case [Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84 : (2009) 4 SCC (Civ) 37] enumerated the factors to be taken into consideration by the court while dealing with an application for amendment. The same would certainly change the nature of the suit, which may be impermissible. 14. This Court in Revajeetu case [Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84 : (2009) 4 SCC (Civ) 37] enumerated the factors to be taken into consideration by the court while dealing with an application for amendment. One of the important factor is as to whether the amendment would cause prejudice to the other side or it fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case or a fresh suit on the amended claim would be barred on the date of filing the application. 15. If the amendment is allowed in the case in hand, certainly prejudice will be caused to the appellant. This is one of the important factors to be seen at the time of consideration of any application for amendment of pleadings. Any right accrued to the opposite party cannot be taken away on account of delay in filing the application .” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court has considered all the judgments that the learned senior counsel has sought to place reliance upon. 11. In the light of elucidation of law, it becomes necessary to notice the order passed by the concerned Court. The reasons so rendered are as follows: “…. …. …. 17. I read the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case and also principles of law laid down in the above judgments. They have to be kept in mind while appreciating the facts and circumstances under which, the proposed amendment is sought for by the plaintiffs. I read the pleadings of the plaintiffs along with the materials available on record including the evidences both oral and documentary since, the present application is filed at the stage of fag end of the proceedings i.e., the reply arguments of the plaintiffs on the arguments of the defendants. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs during the arguments on this application drawn the attention of this Court that in Ex.P28 and Ex.P29, the subject matter of the suit was the land bearing Sy.No.60/4 of Yediyuru Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk which is measuring East to West 100 feet and North to South 300 feet. The said suit was decreed declaring that the plaintiffs are the owners of the said property and they are in possession thereof. The said suit was decreed declaring that the plaintiffs are the owners of the said property and they are in possession thereof. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs have also drawn the attention of this Court to Ex.P26 stating that in the said document also the 2 nd defendant stated that the land bearing Sy.No.60/4 of Yediyuru Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk is measuring East to West 100 feet and North to South 300 feet. The arguments of the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs are that the proposed amendment is in consonance with the said documents and therefore, the proposed amendment is just and necessary to determine the real dispute in controversy between the parties. If the said arguments of the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs are considered, it appears that the above referred two documents states that Sy.No.60/4 measuring 30,000 square feet is the claim of the plaintiffs. 18. But, the learned Counsel for the defendants drawn the attention of this Court to the oral evidences deposed by PW1. In examination-in-chief, PW1 has deposed that the land bearing Sy.Nos.60/4 and 61 is totally measuring 30,000 square feet is their claimed property in the present suit. PW1 in his cross- examination that in Sy.No.60/4, the are measuring 30,000 square feet came to his share and no portion was allotted to him in Sy.No.61. The arguments of the learned Counsels for the defendants are that if the proposed amendment is permitted, the said admission of PW1 made in cross-examination will be taken away. In such an event, prejudice and injustice will be caused to the defendants. The learned Counsels for the defendants have also drawn the attention of this Court on Ex.P14 to Ex.P16 wherein, it is stated that the residential converted property bearing Sy.Nos.60/4 and 61 admeasuring 30,000 square feet. They are admitted documents of the plaintiffs. The learned Counsels for the defendants have also drawn the attention of this Court on Ex.P21 wherein, it appears that the plaintiffs herein have claimed in the said suit that they are the owners of the vacant land measuring 100 X 300 feet in Sy.No.60/4 and 61 of Yediyuru Village. This is a judicial admission of the plaintiffs before the Court. If the above facts facts and circumstances are considered together, it appears that the proposed amendment is not just and necessary to determine the real dispute in controversy between the parties. This is a judicial admission of the plaintiffs before the Court. If the above facts facts and circumstances are considered together, it appears that the proposed amendment is not just and necessary to determine the real dispute in controversy between the parties. It will take away the admissions brought during the trial. In such an event, prejudice and injustice will be caused to the defendants. 19. The reasons assigned by the Partner of the 16th plaintiff is that by oversight, at the time of filing of the suit, the land bearing Sy.No.61 is mentioned and it was noticed when the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs preparing for the arguments. This reason cannot be accepted as due diligence on the part of the plaintiffs for non-seeking the proposed amendment before commencement of the trial. In the judgments relied by the learned Counsels for defendants No.1 to 10 in the cases between J. Samuel and others Vs. Gattu Mahesh and others, (2012) 2 SCC 300 , Chander Kanta Bansal Vs. Rajinder Singh Anand, (2008) 5 SCC 117 and Sadana Vs. Mahabaleshwar and others , 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 5626, the meaning of the word due diligence are explained and it is held that if the party seeks amendment is not proved such due diligence is not entitle for the amendment of the pleadings after the commencement of the trial. In the light of the principles of law laid down in the above judgments if the reason assigned by the Partner of the 16 th plaintiff are considered, the plaintiffs have not satisfied this Court that in spite of due diligence, they could not seek the proposed amendment before the commencement of the trial. Under these circumstance, the plaintiffs have not shown sufficient reason to permit them to amend the plaint as prayed ...” (Emphasis supplied) The concerned Court considers entire spectrum of law as placed before it by the respective parties on due diligence and also the purport of an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed at the fag end of the trial. What is projected is that no prejudice would be caused by changing the survey number or deleting the survey number in the plaint schedule property. Considering an identical issue, a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of C. Lakshminarayana v. N. Narasimhaiah, (2020) SCC Online Kar 5582 has held as follows: “…. …. …. 9. What is projected is that no prejudice would be caused by changing the survey number or deleting the survey number in the plaint schedule property. Considering an identical issue, a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of C. Lakshminarayana v. N. Narasimhaiah, (2020) SCC Online Kar 5582 has held as follows: “…. …. …. 9. It is relevant to note that in agricultural properties, the boundaries to the schedule plays a major role in survey number of the property and therefore, in view of the provisions of Order VI, Rule 17 where there is an embargo that no application shall be allowed after the trial is commenced unless there is due diligence which is shown by the parties seeking for such amendment and it is also to be noted that such prayer for amendment should be taken into consideration having regard to any prejudice that could be caused to the other side. The petitioner cannot seek amendment as a matter of right and nor does the Court have absolute discretion of amendment in view of the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 .” (Emphasis supplied) The coordinate Bench holds that seeking change in survey number undoubtedly causes prejudice. 12. It is trite law that reasons must be assigned to explain the delay in filing the application. The affidavit so filed in support of the application seeking amendment nowhere indicates plausible explanation for the delay. What is said in the affidavit is as follows: “…. …. … 7. I submit that, now the matter is posted for reply arguments on merits. At the time of preparing the arguments, my counsel noticed that, the Sy.No.61 was mentioned in the suit schedule property due to oversight but the said Sy.No.61 is no way connected to the suit schedule property of Sy.No.60/4. 8. I submit that, it is now come to the knowledge that Sy.No.61 was wrongly mentioned in the suit schedule property. Hence, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the plaintiff to delete the said Sy.No.61 in the plaint at para-2 and suit schedule property. 9. 8. I submit that, it is now come to the knowledge that Sy.No.61 was wrongly mentioned in the suit schedule property. Hence, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit the plaintiff to delete the said Sy.No.61 in the plaint at para-2 and suit schedule property. 9. I submit that the said amendment in no way changes the cause of action or alters the nature of the suit and further I state that no additional evidence is also required as I am seeking deletion of only one Sy.No.61 in the suit schedule property and the documents already placed are sufficient to adjudicate on the issue. 10. I submit that, the amendment sought for is necessary for the full and final adjudication of the matter in dispute and so also to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and any complication while executing the Decree in the event we succeed in the matter. 11. I submit that it is only due to oversight and since the plaintiff family was owning land in both the survey numbers Sy.No.61 is also mentioned and therefore inspite of due diligence the same could not be done at the earliest. 12. I submit that, the amendment sought for is bonafide and the delay in filing the same if any is also unintentional one. 13. I submit that, I have good case on merit and it is only due to bonafide reasons started above, the amendment now sought for could not be incorporated at the earliest point of time. 14. I submit that, if the accompanying application is allowed, no hardship or injury will be caused to the Defendants, on the other hand, if the same is rejected, I will be put to great difficulty and hardship which cannot be compensated in any manner what so ever.” What is projected is by oversight the said survey number is incorporated and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and complication while executing the decree, the plaintiffs are seeking amendment. This can hardly be said to be plausible explanation for the delay. The entire edifice of evidence by the parties is built on the plaint schedule property, now to say, it is only a minor mistake is sans acceptance. Above all, Delay is not a month or 14 months; it is 14 years . This can hardly be said to be plausible explanation for the delay. The entire edifice of evidence by the parties is built on the plaint schedule property, now to say, it is only a minor mistake is sans acceptance. Above all, Delay is not a month or 14 months; it is 14 years . In the light of legislative imperativeness of due diligence of any party seeking amendment to the plaint, as found in the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, the order challenged rejecting the application does not warrant interference. 13. Insofar as the judgments relied on by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners with regard to the purport of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, there can no qualm about the principles laid down therein. He has placed heavy reliance upon the judgment in the case of Dinesh Goyal @ Pappu v. Suman Agarwal (Bindal), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2615 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: “…. …. …. 12. The question that we have to consider, in the above backdrop is whether the High Court fell in error in allowing the application seeking leave to amend pleadings, in contravention of the statutory language. … … … 17. Any and all delays in judicial processes should be avoided and minimised to the largest extent possible, and should generally be, and are rightly frowned upon. However, not in all cases can delay determine the fate of a Suit. The defendant submits that the time gap between submitting the written statement to the Suit and the presentation of the application seeking leave to amend is unexplained. If this argument of the defendant is accepted, the question of Will shall remain undecided or at best will be decided with great delay. The trial which has admittedly already commenced, would be stalled by way of a challenge to the framing of issues which, in turn, would not be in consonance with the object of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC which is aimed at preventing multiplicity or multiple avenues of litigation, subsumed under the umbrella of one dispute.” The Apex Court holds that any and all delays in judicial processes should be avoided and minimised to the largest extent possible. However, not in all cases can delay determine the fate of the suit. However, not in all cases can delay determine the fate of the suit. The defendant therein had contended that the time gap between the written statement to the suit and the present application seeking leave to amend is unexplained. Even then the Apex Court permitted the amendment on the ground that it was an issue of a Will, which will remain open even after disposal of the suit and result in multiplicity of litigation. The said judgment is distinguishable, on the facts obtaining in the case at hand, without much ado. Though Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC as amended, permits amendments to pleadings at any stage, but tempers such liberty with a proviso that postulates the necessity of due diligence. The rationale is unmistakable, it is to curb interminable litigation and to ensure trials are not derailed by belated pleas. Proviso to Rule 17 of the CPC, is thus, not an ornamental appendage, but a substantive limitation. 14. Therefore, the delay of 14 years in preferring the application cannot be brushed aside. The concerned Court has on rendering cogent reasons, has rightly rejected the application. The order does not warrant any interference.