by defendant No. 1, were already, in his knowledge, at the time of filing the original written statement. It was not that these pleas, cropped up, after the filing of the written statement, by him. It is also not that he could not come to know of these pleas, despite due diligence. An argument, was raised, before the trial Court, that the proposed amendment, could not be allowed, in view of the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as the trial had already commenced, but the same was rejected by it, on the ground, that the trial, had not yet commenced, as only affidavits by way of examinationin-chief of three witnesses, by the plaintiff, had been tendered. In my opinion, such an observation, made by the trial Court, in the order, is not supported by the provisions of law. The trial commenced, as soon as the issues were settled, and the case was set down for recording evidence, in view of the principle of law laid down in Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and anothers' case (supra). Proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, came into operation, and, as such, the amendment sought for, could not be allowed. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in this regard, being correct, is accepted.
