(1.) The facts, which were not disclosed before the Trial Court, have been improved in this revisional application. It is stated that the documents received in the evidence at the instance of the other side led to filing the application for amendment of the plaint, which this Court does not find to have been incorporated in an application for amendment. Admittedly the amendment was sought after the commencement of trial. By promulgation of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002, a proviso is inserted to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which put a fetter in permitting the parties to amend the pleadings if brought after the commencement of trial, unless the Court is satisfied that the said party though was proceeding diligently, could not take out the same before the trial commences.
(2.) The application for amendment annexed to this revisional application does not reveal any explanation regarding delay in taking out an application for amendment after the commencement of trial. The only paragraph containing the statements for amendment is that at the time of drafting the plaint certain important facts could not be incorporated by the learned advocate, as the plaintiff forgot such facts. It is further stated that those amendments are required for complete and effective adjudication of the suit and shall not change the nature and character thereof.
(3.) When an order of the Trial Court is assailed before the High Court in the revisional jurisdiction, the Court should ordinarily confine its scrutiny on the documents and the papers available before the Trial Court and not on the papers by which an improvement of the case is made for the first time before the High Court in the revisional application by a clever draftsmanship. If the order impugned cannot be set aside on the basis of the materials available before the Trial Court, it cannot be branded illegal or improper on a subsequent development of the case made for the first time before the High Court.