Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76750 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11583 of 2022 Petitioner :- Parmatma Mishra Respondent :- Laxman Singh And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Mishra,Narendra Kumar Chaubey Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. Through this writ petition, a challenge has been laid to order dated 07.05.2022 rejecting the amendment application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC by plaintiff-appellant. The suit instituted by plaintiff in the year 2009 which was on the basis of sale-deed executed in the year 2009 was dismissed on the ground that the property in dispute is not identified. Against the judgment of the trial court, Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2014 was filed by petitioner in which an application under Order VI Rule 17 was moved on 22.11.2014 for amending the plaint describing the boundaries of the property in dispute. The appellate court has rejected the amendment application. Hence, this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to identify the property in dispute, the necessity arose for filing the amendment application. 3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the material on record. 4. Order VI Rule 17 provides as under: "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." 5. From perusal of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17, it is clear that the amendment can only be allowed after the trial has commenced, once the court records a finding that despite due diligence, the plaintiff could not bring before the Court the material which has been placed and the amendment which has been sought subsequently. 6. Suit was filed by petitioner on the basis of sale-deed executed in the year 2009. Petitioner had not disclosed the boundary of the property in dispute. The suit was dismissed on 13.12.2013. At the appellate stage, the petitioner through the proposed amendment is trying to introduce a new case. Proviso to Rule VI Order 17 clearly prohibits such type of action and amendment can only be made in case despite due diligence the party could not place the material on record. 7. In the instant case, the entire material was before the plaintiff who has relied upon the sale-deed of 2009. The amendment has been sought at the appellate stage which has been rightly refused by appellate court. 8. No case for interference is made out in the order impugned. 9. Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 10. Registrar (Compliance) to communicate this order to court concerned, within 48 hours. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 V.S.Singh Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad