Short Note : 1. This is defendant-applicant's revision petition against an order dated 2-8-76 passed the Civil Judge Class II, Jaora, in Civil Suit No. 172/74-A, whereby he refused to allow the defendant's application for amendment of his written statement. 2. It was urged on behalf of the applicant that though in the written statement, there is no specific averment that there are two wells, still an indication to that effect finds place in paragraphs 2 and 6 on the written statement. It was further urged that this amendment, though belated, does not in any way change the nature of the case set up by him nor can it be said to be of mala fide nature as the applicant only wanted to clarify the factual position. Held : The learned trial Court has rejected the application on the sole ground that it would change the nature of the suit and is also likely to change the result of the suit. 3. This reasoning of the learned trial Court, in my opinion is not proper. While considering an application for amendment what has to be seen is, whether it is bona fide and whether the amendment sought is material for determining the controversy in the suit. In the present case, the proposed amendment does not apparently show that it would change the nature of the case. What appears is that the defendant-applicant only wanted to clarify the factual position and the plaintiff-opponent No. 1 could certainly meet out that clarification and this amendment does not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff's case. Revision allowed.