JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, recommending that the review filed by Kunwar Sen and others against the order dated August 29, 1972 passed by the Revenue Officer, Fatehgarh, in a case under Section 229-B, UPZA and LR Act, may be rejected. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. 3. Opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, Ahibaran Singh and Puttu Lal had filed a suit for declaration of Bhumidhari rights in certain plots, which was contested by the defendants. After the close of evidence of the parties, arguments were heard in the case. On the date of the judgment the plaintiffs moved an application for the amendment of the plaint to the effect that a plea may be added that as they are bona fide purchasers for value, they are entitled to the benefit of Sec. 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. The trial court allowed this application on payment of Rs. 15/- as costs with a right of additional written statement to the defendants. This order has been challenged in the present revision. 4. The grounds taken in the revision are, firstly that the amendment sought by the plaintiffs introduces new facts in the case inconsistent with those already pleaded; secondly that the amendment application has been moved at a very late stage, and thirdly that by the amendment the plaintiffs want to change the nature of the case. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionists has referred to R.S. Singh v. Dr. B.P. Srivastava 1978 AWC 452 . In this decision it has been held that one of the basic tests before allowing an amendment application is as to whether the evidence required to prove the case after the amendment would be in any way different from the evidence required to prove the case taken in the plaint as originally constituted. 6. The test indicated above is a sound one. In the present case, I find that the amendment proposed in the plaint does not require any evidence different from that required to prove the case taken in the original plaint. As a matter of fact, in the original plaint the plaintiff-opposite parties had clearly stated that their claim was based on sale deeds executed in their favour by some of the defendants. As a matter of fact, in the original plaint the plaintiff-opposite parties had clearly stated that their claim was based on sale deeds executed in their favour by some of the defendants. Thus, by claiming to be the bona fide purchasers for value, the plaintiff-opposite parties have neither changed the nature of the case nor introduced any new facts inconsistent with those already pleaded. The amendment sought is merely to make the legal position clear. Such an amendment can be moved at any state of the case and it cannot be said that the amendment application is belated. As a matter of fact, the court is bound to allow any amendment in the plaint or the written statement if it considers that such an amendment is necessary for the ends of justice. The learned Additional Commissioner has rightly held that the trial court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction in allowing the amendment application. 7. Agreeing with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner, I hereby dismiss the revision.