Short Note : 1. This is plaintiff's revision against an order passed by the trial Court allowing the defendant Nagar Palika Gohad, to amend the written statement by adding a plea that the suit is not maintainable in the absence of a notice under section 319 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. The suit is for declaration that the land in question belongs to the plaintiffs and the defendant is not entitled to sell the same and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from selling the same. 2. The suit was instituted on 16-11-66. The written statement was filed after about three and a half years on 3-2-70. The evidence of both the parties was closed on 13-9-73 and even the arguments in the case were heard and the case was posted for judgment on 1-10-73. But the judgment could not be delivered on that date. On 17-1-74 the defendant Municipality, Gohad, filed an application in question for amendment of the written statement. Held : It may be pointed out that in para 16 of the plaint it was specifically averred that in the facts and circumstances of the case it was not necessary to serve a notice under section 319 of the Act. The defendant in the written statement averred that no reply to this para need be given. The parties went on trial and as already stated above the case reached the stage of judgment. 3. In the application for amendment no reasons have been given as to why the plea was not taken earlier. All that has been stated is that the additional objection is legal and can be raised at any time. Even the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the defendant had been negligent is not taking this plea earlier, yet it has come to the conclusion that the negligence of the defendant can be condoned by awarding costs. Curiously enough no costs have been awarded. 4. In my opinion, the view taken by the learned trial Court is erroneous. It must be established in a case like the present that the mistake had been committed bona fide. As pointed out earlier, the plaintiff had taken a specific plea that notice under section 319 was not necessary, still the defendant did not take any objection. The suit has been pending since 1966 and the amendment bas been allowed after about 8 years. As pointed out earlier, the plaintiff had taken a specific plea that notice under section 319 was not necessary, still the defendant did not take any objection. The suit has been pending since 1966 and the amendment bas been allowed after about 8 years. 5. I am of the opinion that the lower Court has committed an illegality and has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in allowing the amendment of the written statement at such a belated stage without there being any sufficient cause. Revision allowed.