JUDGMENT D. Dube, M. - Ram Harakh and Baba Din have filed this revision petition against the order of Sri S.L. Srivastava, Sub-Divisional Officer in Suit No. 174/294/154/56 rejection the amendment application of the revisionist for amending written statement. The order of the trial court was upheld by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division vide his order dated April 29, 1976. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The facts of the case are as follows : Pyare son of Pancham filed a suit under Sections 229-B/209 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act claiming Bumidhari/Sirdari rights over the land in suit. Defendants Ram Harakh and Baba Din pleaded in the lower court that the land in suit was given to their father by the previous Bhumidhar before the Abolition of Zamindari for utilizing the land as garden and grove. Consequently the father of the defendants erected a pucca well in the land in suit and raised many fruit trees on the land in question. The lower court after framing seven issues in the suit decided it against the plaintiff by dismissing the suit vide its order dated September 17, 1971. 4. Plaintiff in the lower court, Pyare went in appeal and the learned Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal vide his order May 9, 1974, set aside the order of the trial court dated September 17, 1971 and remanded the case back for disposal afresh in the light of the observations made in his judgment cited above. 5. After remand when the file was again taken up by the trial court, the revisionists Ram Harakh and Baba Din filed an application before the trial court on February 26, 1975 requesting the Court to allow them to amend their original written statement by adding another paragraph after paragraph 23 of their written statement. They wanted to add in their amendment application that the land in dispute is actually not identifiable by the description given in the plaint because the boundary of the plot has not been mentioned and the land in dispute is actually not identifiable. The land should be actually demarcated on the spot and thereafter further proceedings in the suit should be taken by the lower court. 6. The land should be actually demarcated on the spot and thereafter further proceedings in the suit should be taken by the lower court. 6. After considering the facts of the case and the circumstances under which the application was moved by the revisionists the trial court rejected the amendment application vide its order dated September 24, 1975 against which the present revision has been preferred. 7. The learned counsel for revisionists has argued that the issue involved in the application for amendment in the written statement is very pertinent and material and the trial court should have allowed it for proper appraisal of the facts of the suit. 8. The trial court and the learned Additional Commissioner have rejected the plea of the defendant-revisionists on the ground that the land in dispute has been properly defined in the plaint alongwith its area and, therefore, it does not need any further identification. 9. The learned counsel for the opposite party has cited A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2183 (Pare 9) and 1977 R.D. 162-164 (Para 6) and stated that the suit was hotly contested in the lower court for about six year but the defendant revisionists never thought of amending their written statement in respect of identifiability of the land in dispute. From the perusal of the file of the lower court, I find that an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to inspect the land in suit and report the actual position of the land on the spot. Consequently Sri Umesh Chandra Saxena, Advocate Commissioner inspected the land in suit on Aug. 23, 1970 in presence of the parties and their counsels and submitted his report to the trial court with full details alongwith the site map. Second paragraph of the report indicates that the land in suit was identified on the spot by the parties themselves and no objection was raised by any one in this respect. The second paragraph of the report reads as follows : "The land in suit was identified by the parties. I have shown it by the letters ABCDEF in the site plan prepared by me, which forms part of the report. Its boundary is as under : North :- Plot of Ram Harakh South :- , , , East :- Rasta from letter B to D and Parti from D to E. West :- Field of Ram Harakh. I have shown it by the letters ABCDEF in the site plan prepared by me, which forms part of the report. Its boundary is as under : North :- Plot of Ram Harakh South :- , , , East :- Rasta from letter B to D and Parti from D to E. West :- Field of Ram Harakh. The measure of the land in suit is as AB-41 ft., BC-63 ft.; CD-34 ft., DE-66 ft., EF-82 ft. and FA-141 ft." 10. From the above it is clear that the land was properly identifiable by the description given in the plaint and also from the report of the Advocate Commissioner which is available on record. 11. There is no doubt that a Court has a discretion to allow the amendment in the pleadings at any stage but such amendments are allowed only in order to facilitate the adjudication between the parties. Where, however, the amendment is sought to be made at a belated stage merely with a view to harass the other parties and to prolong the litigation, the Court has the full discretion to disallow the amendment application. In the present case. I am satisfied from a perusal of the record that the trial court has exercised its jurisdiction in the proper manner. The amendment sought to be made by the revisionist Ram Harakha and Babadin in their original written statement is certainly not only belated but its purpose appears to be to prolong the litigation. The trial court as well as the learned Additional Commissioner have correctly held that the amendment sought for is malafide and only to delay the disposal of the suit which has already taken sufficiently long time. 12. In view of the above, the revision has no merits and is dismissed.