M.M. Kumar, J.

1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution prays for setting aside order dated 30.10.2004 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rajpura dismissing the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order-VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the written statement.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary for deciding the controversy raised are that the plaintiff-respondent filed Civil Suit No. 413 dated 2.11.2000 for possession of the site/shop. The details of the aforementioned property are mentioned in the head note of the plaint. After the plaintiff-respondent has concluded his evidence, the case was fixed for evidence of the defendant-petitioner and last opportunity was granted to him to conclude his evidence. It was on that date that an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, CPC) was filed. The trial Court has dismissed the application by holding that the amendment has been sought merely to prolong the proceedings and the plea sought to be raised by incorporating the amendment is inconsistent with the plea already taken. It has further been observed that the plaintiff-respondent has already adduced his evidence in accordance with the plea taken by the defendant-petitioner in the written statement and the issues framed.

3. Having gone through the impugned order, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out for entertaining the instant petition because under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the stage for amendment is only when the trial has not yet commenced. According to proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI CPC, no application for amendment could be entertained after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that by due diligence the party seeking amendment could not have raised the matter before commencement of the trial. In the present case, the following amendment has been sought:-

"That the possession of the defendant on the shop in question is as a tenant under the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. The plaintiff is receiving rent from the defendant orally without issuing any receipt. The so called agreement of mortgage and the mortgage deed dt. 8.1.96 and other documents got prepared by the plaintiff and his predecessor in interest Lalita Mehta and her husband Ved Parkash, are fictitious and sham documents. In fact, the defendant is tenant under the plaintiff. The said documents were got prepared by the plaintiff, Lalita Mehta and her husband Ved Parkash to avoid the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The same is a camouflage to avoid the provisions of Rent Act and as such the defendant can be evicted from the shop in dispute only in accordance with the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. So the suit is liable to be dismissed. In fact the provisions of the rent Act is an umbrella given to the tenants and to avoid the provisions of Rent Act, the fictitious documents were prepared by the plaintiff, Lalita Mehta and her husband. It is alleged that the proposed amendment is very much necessary for proper decision of the case, which application was opposed."

4. By no stretch of imagination, it could be concluded that the status of the defendant-petitioner as tenant which is sought to be asserted by incorporating paragraph 3-A in the written statement was not in his knowledge when he filed the written statement. Therefore, the application is far beyond the scope of Order VI Rule 17 CPC. There is no ground made out showing that palpable injustice would be caused which may warrant interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The instant petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.