13. On perusal of amendment application it appears that in the first line, the pre-emptor/opposite party has stated that he is an uneducated village rustic person, belonging to schedule caste community and on 17.08.2018 while he was searching for other documents, he discovered xerox copy of the said deed and then he had brought it to the notice of his lawyer. In the written objection filed by petitioner herein /purchaser, has not denied or disputed said contention made by the pre-emptor/opposite party. In the absence of denial, if the said statement is treated as worthy to be trusted, then it does not attract rigour of proviso to Rule 17 of order VI of C.P.C. The Judgments cited by Learned Counsel for the petitioner/purchaser also does not support petitioner’s case because, case law reported in AIR 2006 SC 2832, it was observed that courts should be extremely liberal in granting prayer for amendment, unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to other side. In the present case what is sort to be incorporated by way of amendment, is not at all inconsistent with the pre-emptor’s earlier plea, rather if the amendment is allowed it comes by way of additional fact. Petitioner/purchaser nowhere explained how the proposed amendment will cause serious injustice or irreparable loss to him. In the case reported in 2014 (2) Odisha Law Report 205 the plea of due diligence was taken in a case, where plaintiff wanted to incorporate by way of amendment, the facts which were already in record, but that is not the issue in the present context. In AIR 2008 SC 2234 , it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the words “due diligence” has not been defined in the Code. However, “Due diligence” means the diligence
