Short Note : 1. This appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 26-11-1968 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in Civil Appeal No. 22-A of 1968 dismissing his suit for possession over the suit property and permanent injunction restraining the respondent-defendant from interfering with his possession. 2. The suit was contested by the respondent-defendant claiming dismissal of the suit. The trial Court decreed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff for possession but rejected his claim for issue of a permanent injunction. On appeal by the respondent-defendant, the lower appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal by the appellant-plaintiff. Held: Having heard learned counsel of the parties I am of opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and it must be dismissed Learned counsel for the appellant plaintiff fairly conceded that the judgment of the lower appellate Court is unassailable unless the application dated 29-9-1971 under Order 6, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure submitted in this Court to amend the plaint is allowed to incorporate a plea of adverse possession. Therefore, the decision of this appeal rests on the basis of the aforementioned application to the allowed or not. According to the learned counsel for the appellant plaintiff all the ingredients necessary for giving a finding about adverse possession are proved in the case and such it would be in the interest of justice to allow him to raise the plea of adverse possession even at this stage. which would occasion no prejudice to the other side. The application was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent-defendant. 3. I shall now proceed to consider the merits of the application. The appellant-plaintiff had originally filed the suit against the respondent-defendant for issue of a permanent injunction alone, which was dismissed. Then, in the appeal before the lower appellate Court he filed an application under Order 6, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint for incorporating therein an alternative plea for possession of the suit property. That application was disallowed and also the appeal was dismissed. Then, in the appeal before the lower appellate Court he filed an application under Order 6, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint for incorporating therein an alternative plea for possession of the suit property. That application was disallowed and also the appeal was dismissed. But in the second appeal preferred by the appellant-plaintiff, this Court while allowing the same and setting aside the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, remanded the case for rehearing after granting permission to amend, the pleading by incorporating the relief for possession as well. On remand the trial Court permitted the appellant-plaintiff to amend his plaint and afford fresh opportunity to the parties to lead their respective evidence. 4. In the second round the appellant-plaintiff though succeeded in getting a decree for possession only, but in appeal preferred by the respondent-defendant, as mentioned earlier the appellate Court dismissed the suit. The present second appeal in this Court was filed on 08-12-1969 by the appellant-plaintiff. It was on 13-9-1976 when the appeal was listed in the daily cause list for hearing of parties, that the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff prayed for time to file an application for amendment of the plaint again and the same was filed on 27-9-1976. 5. The reasons for rejecting the application are: firstly, the amendment sought is to incorporate in the plaint entirely a new plea and that too at a much belated stage. The appellant-plaintiff never thought of claiming his title on the basis of his adverse possession by seeking an amendment of the plaint when he fought the litigation in the earlier round upto the stage of second appeal in this Court Even after remand of the case from this Court, he did not make any effort in that direction. The present second appeal in the second round was filed on 6-2-1969 and had been pending for all these long years. It was only on 13-9-1976 when the appeal was to be heard, a prayer for amendment of the plaint was made. Thus, in my opinion, the plea is clearly an after-thought and is being tried to be raised with much inordinate delay. Even the application does not contain reasons explaining such a belated move in that direction. 6. Secondly the plea of adverse possession is always based on facts which must be asserted and proved. Thus, in my opinion, the plea is clearly an after-thought and is being tried to be raised with much inordinate delay. Even the application does not contain reasons explaining such a belated move in that direction. 6. Secondly the plea of adverse possession is always based on facts which must be asserted and proved. If I allow the amendment at such a late stage, it would amount opening a third round of the same case between the parties by remanding the case again for fresh evidence, which, I think, would be most unjust. The plaint in the instant suit was filed by the appellant-plaintiff on 18-11-1961 and already 15 years have elapsed. The appellant-plaintiff has to thank himself for not fighting his case with due diligence. I am, therefore, of the view that on the facts of the present case the plea of adverse possession should not be allowed to be raised at this stage. Hence, I reject the application of the appellant-plaintiff for permission to amend the plaint. 7. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that no remand is necessary if the application is allowed. I am of opinion that it has no substance. Before the lower appellate Court it was no doubt admitted that the appellant-plaintiff had been in possession of the suit property from 1-4-1948 till the year 1961, but that alone cannot be held sufficient to infer adverse possession of the appellant-plaintiff. It is thus well settled that "a person who claims adverse possession must show on what date he came into possession, what was the nature of his possession, whether the factum of his possession was known to the legal claimants and how long his possession continued. He must also show whether his possession was open and undisturbed. These are all questions of fact and unless they are asserted and proved, a plea of adverse possession cannot be inferred from them." [See Ganda Singh and others v. Ramnarain Singh (AIR 1959 Punjab [147 FB)]. Appeal dismissed.