Anjani Kumar - (1.) -Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner-defendant filed an application for amendment seeking amendment in the written statement which has been denied by the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the revisional court by means of Civil Revision No. 48 of 2002. THE revisional court maintained the order passed by the trial court and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and having gone through the order impugned in the present writ petition, it reveals that a finding recorded by the trial court, which has been affirmed by the revisional court that the suit has been filed in the year 1990. In rebuttal the finding recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the revisional court, the petitioner contended that the stage of adducing the evidence has not yet come, therefore, the trial court should have allowed the amendment and that too the revisional court has also committed error, as the proviso of Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in the year 2002 puts a restriction regarding the stage when the amendment can be brought into the pleadings. The proviso, referred to above, which is relevant for the purposes to solve the controversy, is reproduced below : "Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure : 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." In view of the statutory proviso, referred to above, in my opinion, the trial court as well as the revisional court has not committed any error, much less error apparent on the face of record, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) IN view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.;