JUDGMENT Verma, J. - This is a defendant's appeal from an order of remand. The suit was one for preemption. The trial Court dismissed it. The lower appellate Court has allowed the plaintiff's appeal and has remanded the suit. 2. The sale deed in question was executed on 18-9-1942. The plaintiff instituted the suit on 14-9-1943. The allegation made in the plaint was that the plaintiff was a co-sharer in the Mahal in which the property was situated and that the defendant vendee was an utter stranger. The Court fixed 23-11-1948, for the framing of issues. The defendant filed his written statement on 53-11-1943, and alleged that he too was a co-sharer in the Mahal in question. The plea raised by the defendant thus was that the plaintiff was not entitled to preference over him. The Court framed issues on that date, and the first issue was whether the plaintiff had "a prior right of pre-emption against the defendant." The 14th January 1944 -was fixed for final hearing. On 13-12-1943, the plaintiff filed an application alleging that she was a "near relation" and that she was entitled to pre-emption as against the defendant on that ground also. It was alleged in the application, that this ground was not mentioned in the plaint by mistake, or rather through forgetfulness (sahwan). The, prayer was that the plaintiff be allowed to amend the plaint and to add a plea that the plaintiff was a "near relation" of the vendor within the meaning of those words in S. 12, Agra Pre-emption Act. The defendant filed a petition objecting to the amendment prayed for and, on 16-12-1943, the Court rejected the plaintiff's application for amendment, substantially on the ground that the plaintiff could not be allowed to change her case at that late stage. The case was taken up on the date fixed, viz. 14-1-1944. The plaintiff applied for adjournment and the Court granted it, fixing 4th April for final hearing. The case came on for hearing on that date and, in view of the fact the copies of Khewats filed by the defendant established it beyond doubt that he too was a co-sharer in the Mahal, the Munsif dismissed the suit, as he was bound to do. The case came on for hearing on that date and, in view of the fact the copies of Khewats filed by the defendant established it beyond doubt that he too was a co-sharer in the Mahal, the Munsif dismissed the suit, as he was bound to do. The plaintiff took an appeal to the lower appellate Court and the learned Civil Judge, who heard the appeal, allowed it by a judgment which has to be characterised as unsatisfactory. The learned Judge expressed the opinion that the application for amendment would not change the nature of the case and that the vendee would not be prejudiced by the amendment being allowed. Both these grounds are clearly erroneous. The amendment, if allowed, would have changed the nature of the case, for the suit would then have been baaed on a totally new ground. Furthermore from the facts stated above, it is clear that the plaintiff had come to Court with a false allegation, namely, that the defendant was a stranger. When the plaintiff found that the defendant had exposed the untruth of her allegation, she filed this application for amendment. There is every reason to suspect that this allegation of relationship is not true, for, it is difficult to believe that such an important allegation would not have been made in the plaint, as originally filed, if there had been any truth in it. Thus, if the amendment had been allowed, it would have enabled the plaintiff to adduce false evidence. In our judgment, the trial Court was perfectly right in holding that the plaintiff could not be permitted to harass the defendant in that manner. If the amendment had been allowed, the defendant would obviously have been prejudiced. The lower appellate Court was, in our opinion, wrong in allowing the plaintiff's application for amendment and sending the case back to the first Court. 3. For the reasons given above, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the lower appellate Court allowing the plaintiff's application for amendment as well as the order of remand. The case will go back to the lower appellate Court with the direction that it should reinstate the appeal filed in that Court at its original position in the register of pending appeal and will proceed to dispose of it after hearing arguments on the other points involved in the case. The case will go back to the lower appellate Court with the direction that it should reinstate the appeal filed in that Court at its original position in the register of pending appeal and will proceed to dispose of it after hearing arguments on the other points involved in the case. The appellant is entitled to his costs in this Court. The costs in the Court below will abide the event. A certificate will be issued to the appellant for refund of the court-fee paid on the memorandum of appeal filed in this Court.