JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member. - In this reference dated February 11, 1977 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, it has been recommended that the order of the learned trial court rejecting the amendment in the written statement be set aside and the additional written statement as well as the amendment in the written statement may be allowed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 3. In the trial court, it was a case under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in which the written statement was filed as December 23, 1971 and thereafter the plaint was amended by the order dated April 28, 1972, thus adding the defendants 4 to 6 giving them shares in the land in dispute. The learned trial court thereafter disallowed the additional written statement dated October 3, 1974 on which the revisionist moved the court for certain amendments on July 23, 1975 and these were rejected by the impugned order on the ground that by this amendment, the nature of the case would change and also these were belated. The learned Additional Commissioner has found the amendments justified. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the nature of the suit does not change by the amendment in the written statement and cited in support a ruling reported in A.I.R. 1974 Punj. 194. He further argued that delay could not be any ground for rejecting amendment, in support he cited a ruling reported in A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1267. The learned counsel for the opposite party has cited a ruling reported in A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2091 in support of his contention that if the party had knowledge and still delayed the amendment application, it had to be rejected. Regarding the change in the nature of the defence, he has cited a ruling reported in A.I.R 1961 Bom. 136 and two rulings on the point of delay in spite of knowledge. In my view, these rulings on the point of delay would not apply to the present case because it was not the amendment application without any need and the amendment in the plaint by order dated April 28, 1972. 136 and two rulings on the point of delay in spite of knowledge. In my view, these rulings on the point of delay would not apply to the present case because it was not the amendment application without any need and the amendment in the plaint by order dated April 28, 1972. Since the learned trial court had allowed a change in the nature of the suit, he had no justification to disallow amendment in the written statement arising out of the amendment in the plaint. It is also true that any change in the written statement means only a change in defence and not change in the nature of the suit. As regards the change in the defence, the guiding principle must be that such change should appear necessary and should not cause injustice to the plaintiff. In the present case, it is rather reverse and by rejection of the amendment, injustice is plainly seen to the defendant-applicant. In A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1267, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that although it was discretion of the court, an amendment even in the plaint should not be refused on technical grounds, therefore, it was all the more justified to allow the amendment in the written statement. 5. Accordingly, this reference is accepted, the revision petition is allowed, the order of the learned trial court dated October 24, 1975 is set aside and the additional written statement dated October 3, 1974 as well the amendments sought in the application dated July 23, 1975 are hereby allowed. The learned trial court should hereafter allow further opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence as desired and then proceed and decide the case in accordance with law. 6. The next date before the trial court is fixed for November 2, 1983.