plaintiff now wants to introduce the fact that the property which has been transferred by the defendant no. 2 Paras Nath Tiwari in favour of defendant no. 1 was the property allotted to the plaintiff in the aforesaid partition. This fact is apparently inconsistent with the statement made in paragraph-3 of the plaint and clearly amounts to introducing a new fact which would result in the de novo trial of the suit as the defendant would have to be given opportunity to file additional written statement and lead evidence. The learned court below has come to the conclusion that in view of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. as introduced by amendment therein, no prayer for amendment in the pleading can be allowed after the commencement of the trial of the suit in absence of due diligence. It is evincible from the nature of the amendments as prayed by the plaintiff that they are demonstrably not intended for corrections of the typing mistakes . As such the element of due diligence is completely wanting on the part of the plaintiff. The decision relied upon on behalf of the petitioner in the case of J. Samuel Vs. Gattu Mahesh, 2012(1) P.L.J.R. SC 412, in fact, supports the contention of the respondents as well as the view taken by the learned court below in the impugned order. As such, this court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order.
