Short Note : 1. It appears that the suit has been pending for a long time and ultimately in 1963 it came in second appeal to this Court and has been remanded thereafter after amendment of the plaint. Thereafter the evidence has yet not commenced. The defendant by the present application wanted to amend the written-statement by deleting certain portions of the written statement which was filed earlier According to learned counsel for the petitioner this was necessitated on account of the amendment of the plaint whereas learned counsel for the non applicant contends that by this amendment the defendant is withdrawing certain admissions which were in the written-statement as originally filed. The learned Court beloy; rejected this application merely on the ground of delay. Held: It is not in dispute that an amendment could not be refused if it does not alter the nature of the defence or raise some question which involves a question of limitation. Admittedly, neither a new defence is being set up, nor any question of limitation arises. As regards delay, it appears, unfortunately that that has been the fate of this case and the case has been going on (or all these years. Apparently, therefore. it could not be said that the Court below had no jurisdiction to allow this application for amendment The learned Court' below therefore committed material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction when it threw out the application for amendment merely saying that it is delayed. 2. Learned counsel for the non-applicant made a grievance that there arc certain admissions which according to him may be or value to the plaintiff and they are being withdrawn. But it cannot be said that merely because the defendant chooses to delete certain portions from the written-statement it does not mean that those portions will be scored out from the record. The original written-statement will remain on record and if the plaintiff wants he can use these admissions as and when necessary. It cannot be said that some valuable admissions will be lost if this application is allowed. In view of this, in my opinion, the order passed by the lower Court cannot be maintained. Revision allowed.