JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri S.M. Hassan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad recommending that the revision against the interim order dated October 24, 1970 passed by Judicial Officer, Faizabad in Suit No. 73/53/90/115 under Section 176, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Ram Jas and Sarju Prasad, opposite parties No. 1 and 2 had filed a suit under Section 176 U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the revisionists Ram Lakhan and others on July 14, 1967. The defendants filed their written statement on November 6, 1967 and November 12, 1967. The evidence of the plaintiffs was concluded on December 4, 1969. The case was thereafter fixed for the evidence of the defendants on February 16, 1970. On February 16, 1970 the defendants prayed for adjournment which was allowed for May 1, 1970. On May 1, 1970 again the case was adjourned for evidence of defendants on July 14, 1970. On July 14, 1970 the defendants again failed to produce their evidence but the statement of Ram Lakhan, defendant revisionist was recorded and an adjournment was granted to the defendants for producing further evidence on July 25, 1970. On July 25, 1970 the defendants instead of producing their evidence moved an application for amending the written statement. By the impugned order the trial court rejected the application for the amendment. The learned Additional Commissioner has agreed with the order of the trial court. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionists has contended that the trial court has erred in law and in fact in rejecting the amendment application. This contention has been challenged by the learned counsel for the opposite parties. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has also argued that the suit has been decided on December 23, 1970 and as such the revision itself has become in fructuous. 5. I find from the record that suit has indeed been finally decided by the trial court on December 23, 1970 and this judgment of the trial court has not so her been set aside. In the circumstances, the present revision has become in fructuous as it pertains to the interlocutory order of the trial court rejecting the application for the amendment of the written statement. In the circumstances, the present revision has become in fructuous as it pertains to the interlocutory order of the trial court rejecting the application for the amendment of the written statement. Apart from this, the revision has no force on merits itself. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has referred to Hirdai Narain v. Bhagwati Pd. etc., 1954 R.D. 79, in which it has been held that the powers of permitting he amendment of pleadings must be exercised in accordance with judicial discretion and certain settled principle. The learned Members had further observed as follows: "If a state of fact existed when the original plaint was filed an amendment to change the nature of the suit is not permissible. This is a correct principle to follow whether the change affects the subject-matter on the nature of the suit. Where an amendment is sought on the basis of facts apparently within the knowledge of the plaintiff at the time the suit was filed without any reasonable explanation why the suit was not filed in the form which the amendment seeks to give it and whether such an amendment clearly causes confusion, it is advisable and proper to refuse the amendment irrespective of the question whether it is likely to cause injury to the other side." A similar vie has been taken in Subhendra Shekhareshwar Rai v. Deo Baran and others, 1968 R.D. 263, by a learned Member Sri C.M. Nigam who has observed as follows: "The power of the court under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. to allow amendment of the pleadings is fairly wide but this is subject to certain conditions. The most important principle for permitting amendment of the written statement is that it would not be granted if it would convert the defence into another of a different and inconsistent character. No amendment can be permitted if it would involve a complete change of front in the defence. A defendant cannot be permitted to introduce a different set of facts inconsistent with those pleaded to begin with particularly when any admissions are sought to be withdrawn which would cause injury to the other side. No amendment can be permitted if it would involve a complete change of front in the defence. A defendant cannot be permitted to introduce a different set of facts inconsistent with those pleaded to begin with particularly when any admissions are sought to be withdrawn which would cause injury to the other side. Ordinarily a defendant is not allowed to set up a new case by amendment at a late stage when it would mean remanding the case for taking further evidence." I find that in the present case the defendants wanted to correct certain alleged mistake in their earlier written statement. In the earlier written statement the defendants had stated that Bandhan was the common ancestor of the parties who had three sons, Khelawan, Ram Lal and Jai Ram. It may be noted that the plaintiffs had stated in he plaint that the common ancestor Bandhan had two sons Khelawan and Jai Ram, that the plaintiffs were the grandsons of Jai Ram and the defendants were sons and grandsons of Khelawan. In their application for amendment now the defendants tried to put up a new case by saying that Jai Ram was not the son of Bandhan. This new plea has been taken up when the evidence of the plaintiffs was over and when the defendants was over and when the defendants also themselves failed to produce their evidence in spite of repeated adjournments. The trial court had, therefore, rightly rejected the application for amendment. 6. There is no force in the revision petition and it is hereby dismissed.