Bombay High Court  Amendment of a written statement – Application after the commencement of order – Failed to demonstrate due diligence CPC – 0.2R.2, O.6R.17 & O.6R.18 – Amendment of a written statement after the commencement of the trial, the trial court permitted the amendment even though the respondent failed to demonstrate due diligence. The court justified its decision by stating that the amendment was not introducing a new plea but rather providing clarification on existing issues. However, as per legal standards, such amendments can only be allowed if the party requesting the amendment can show that despite exercising due diligence, they were unable to file the application before the trial commenced. The trial court’s acknowledgment of the defendant’s failure to prove due diligence should have invoked the proviso, which restricts the court’s jurisdiction to allow the amendment under these circumstances. The failure to adhere to this requirement undermined the trial court’s decision. Therefore, the impugned order permitting the amendment was quashed. The respondent’s application for amendment was rejected, and the petition challenging the trial court’s decision was allowed, setting a precedent on the strict application of due diligence in post-commencement amendments.