Due diligence governs post-trial amendments of pleadings; amendment refused where the plea was already within the party's knowledge.

After commencement of trial, an amendment of pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC can be permitted only if the applicant pleads and proves due diligence, showing that the matter could not have been raised earlier despite reasonable effort or that it arises from subsequent events. The proposed amendment was rejected because the application disclosed no such facts and the new plea was already within the defendants' knowledge when the written statement was filed. The refusal to permit amendment was sustained and the writ petition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an amendment of the written statement could be allowed after commencement of trial without showing due diligence.

Analysis: The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 restricts amendment after commencement of trial. The decisive requirement is that the applicant must show due diligence by pleading and establishing that the matter could not have been raised earlier despite reasonable effort, or that the amendment is based on subsequent events. The application disclosed no such facts, and the proposed plea was within the defendants' knowledge when the original written statement was filed. The authorities cited did not dilute the requirement of due diligence in a case where the amendment was sought after commencement of trial.

Conclusion: The amendment was not liable to be allowed, and the refusal to permit amendment was .

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed, and the order rejecting amendment of the written statement was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: After commencement of trial, an amendment of pleadings can be permitted only if the applicant demonstrates due diligence by showing that the matter could not have been raised earlier despite reasonable effort.

---