- (1.) In a suit seeking a decree of possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated 8.5.2007, amendment had been sought in the written statement when trial had already commenced and witnesses of the plaintiff had already been examined. The petitioner-defendant had availed six opportunities to cross-examine the said witnesses and had been seeking repeated adjournments.
(2.) When we examine the nature of amendment sought to be introduced in the written statement already on record, it clearly transpires that an attempt is for withdrawing the admissions already made by the petitionerdefendant and the amendment sought entirely changes the stand of the petitioner-defendant. At this stage Rule 17 of Order VI CPC for ready reference, is appended as below:- "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 make as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that on 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 present petition proviso to Rule 17 is to be considered.
(3.) It is worth noticed that by seeking amendment admissions already made are sought to be withdrawn. There is complete lack of due diligence. Even otherwise the amendment sought to be introduced is about the facts which were well within the knowledge of the petitioner-defendant since long.;