Short Note : 1. One of the grounds on which eviction is sought by the plaintiffs is that the suit accommodation is bona fide required by the plaintiffs for their use. Before the case was fixed for recording evidence, the plaintiffs submitted an application of 21st June 1976 under O.6, R.17 CPC seeking leave to amend the plaint by adding an averment in paragraph 5 of the plaint that the suit accommodation was required by the plaintiffs for starting business and that the plaintiffs were not in possession of any other suitable accommodation for that purpose in the town of Indore. By its impugned order, the trial Court rejected this application and hence the plaintiffs have preferred this revision petition. Held : Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, I have come to the conclusion that this revision petition deserves to be allowed. The trial Court has rejected the application for amendment on the ground that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit. Now, one of the grounds urged by the plaintiff-petitioners for seeking eviction was that the suit accommodation was bona fide required by them. By the proposed amendment, the particulars of the requirements were sought to be averred by the plaintiffs. In any event, it could not be held that by the proposed amendment in the plaint, the plaintiffs would be changing the nature of their suit. In these circumstances, the trial Court has, by rejecting the application for amendment on an erroneous ground, refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law. The application dated 21st June 1976 for amendment, therefore, deserves to be allowed, but as it was made after the issues were framed, it would meet the ends of juristice if the plaintiffs were granted leave to amend the plaint as prayed for subject to payment of Rs. 50/- as costs to the defendant. Revision allowed.