ORDER Vineet Saran, J.
1. One Smt. Vimala Devi filed a succession case claiming herself to be the widow of late Adhar Singh. The said miscellaneous case was filed in April, 2003. The petitioner filed his written statement on 5.9.2003. Thereafter the evidence of the said Vimala Devi had been closed and the petitioner was granted time to adduce evidence. At this stage the petitioner filed an application on 17.2.2006 seeking amendment of his written statement. By order dated 14.3.2006 the said application of the petitioner has been rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.
3. The amendment is being sought after nearly three years of the filing of the case and more than two years of the filing of the written statement by the petitioner which is to the effect that the applicant Vimala Devi is not the widow of late Adhar Singh ; that a fabricated case has been filed by Vimala Devi ; and that the case is not maintainable before the Court.
4. It is not explained by the petitioner as to why such an amendment application was being filed at such a late stage. The said amendment application was admittedly filed under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After the said Rule 17 has been amended with effect from 1.7.2000, the proviso to the said Rule clearly provides that no application for amendment of pleadings shall be allowed if the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.
5. Admittedly, in the present case the trial has already commenced. The petitioner has not brought on record any ground for allowing the amendment application after the commencement of the trial nor has he placed on record the reason because of which he could not, in spite of due diligence, raise the matter before the commencement of the trial. The said amendment application has been filed after the evidence of the applicant Vimala Devi had been closed and opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce evidence. A perusal of the impugned order shows that after seeking adjournment on several dates for adducing evidence, such an amendment application has been filed by the petitioner, and that too without assigning any reasons for filing such an application at such a late stage. I find no reason to disagree with the finding of the court below that the application has been filed by the petitioner only to delay the decision of the case.
6. In support of his contention that the delay cannot be made ground for rejecting the prayer for amendment, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two decisions of the Apex Court rendered in the case of B. K. Narayana Filial v. Parameshwaran Piliai, 2000 ACJ 623 and Raghu Thilak D. John v. S. Rasappan, 2001 (1) AWC 622 (SC) : 2001 ACJ 509. I have perused the said judgments. The ratio of the said decisions do not apply to the facts of the present case. Even otherwise, after the aforesaid decisions the relevant Rule has been amended with effect from 1.7.2000. After the amendment proviso to Rule 17 makes it clear that the amendment can be made after the commencement of the trial only when the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, a party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial. In the present case, the petitioner has not given any reason for not raising the matter at the stage of filing his written statement initially or before the commencement of the trial. As such the order of the court below rejecting the amendment application of the petitioner is wholly justified and I do not find any good ground for interference with the impugned order.
7. This writ petition is, accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.