S. A. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners herein who are the original defendants Nos. 1 2 and 3 challenge the order of the learned trial Judge dated 16-12-1983 below Exhibit 76 in special Civil Suit No. 30 of 1980 whereby the learned trial Judge has rejected the application of the petitioners-defendants for amendment of the written statement. ( 2 ) OPPONENT herein is the original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as `plaintiff) who had filed a suit against the petitioners-defendants for a decree for possession of the suit land on the ground that he had purchased the suit land from one Dahyalal Naranbhai for a consideration of Rs. 1500/- in the year 1958. The plaintiff originally con- tended that he was in possession of the suit land and had prayed for temporary injunction also but after the temporary injunction was refused he amended the plaint and prayed for possession of the suit land. It can therefore be inferred that the defendants are in possession of the suit land. ( 3 ) THE contention of the defendants is that defendant No. 1 is the father of defendants No. 2 and 3 and also of the plaintiff. The case of the petitioners-defendants in a nutshell is that the said land was purchased by defen- dant No. 1 from one Dahyabhai Naranbhai in the year 1958 and since the plaintiff was his eldest son the pro- perty was mutated in the name of the plaintiff. It was further contended that defendant No. 1 was the owner of the said land and was cultivating the same and has continuously remained in possession thereof. The defendants further contended that the plaintiff was serving in a mill at Ahmedabad and was never cultivating the suit land nor was he the owner thereof. ( 4 ) I have perused the plaint and it appears that the case of the plaintiff is based upon his ownership by pur- chase from the original owner Dahyabhai Naranbhai. He had not claimed his ownership on any other ground ex- cept that he is the person who paid the consideration and that he is the purchaser from the original owner. ( 5 ) MR. He had not claimed his ownership on any other ground ex- cept that he is the person who paid the consideration and that he is the purchaser from the original owner. ( 5 ) MR. M. C. Shah learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-defendants states that neither in the plaint nor in the deposition the plaintiff has ever stated that he was deemed tenant of the suit property and that he was granted certificate by the A. L. T. recognising him as the deemed purchaser under the provisions of Section 32 (g) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Mr. Shah further submits that after the closure of the deposition of the plaintiff the matter was adjourned to 24th November 1983 for the purpose of recording further evidence of the witnesses. However instead of examining the witnesses the plaintiff produced a certificate granted by the A. L. T. showing the plaintiff as the deemed purchaser though no such case was put up by the plaintiff. On production of the said certificates the defendants gave an application to the Court for amendment of the written statement to the effect that the said certificate has been obtained by the plaintiff by fraud and that the plaintiff was never a tenant nor had he ever cultivated the suit land and that the said certificate is there-fore neither legal nor binding to the petitioners-defendants etc. ( 6 ) HOWEVER the learned trial Judge by his order dated 16-12-1983 rejected the application for amendment on the ground that in the year 1962 the plaintiff is declared to be deemed tenant of the suit land and that such application for amendment was submitted with a view to prolong the matter when the evidence of the plaintiff was over. ( 7 ) IT appears from the order of the learned trial Judge that on the one hand he accepts such certificate at a very late stage that too after the deposition of the plaintiff was over though there was no such case put up by the plain- tiff in the plaint and on the other hand he considers the defendants guilty of delay by prolonging the matter. The learned Judge it appears has not considered the application for amendment on its own merits but has been led away by extraneous consideration of delay. The learned Judge it appears has not considered the application for amendment on its own merits but has been led away by extraneous consideration of delay. If the plaintiff changes his case by producing an evidence which was not mentioned in the plaint nor has been produced along with the plaint or with the list of documents before raising the issue he cannot be permitted to produce the same without hearing the other side and if the other side is pre- judiced by production of such evidence the other side should be given opportunity to amend the written statement so as to meet a new case. However Mr. Shah has not raised the point that the document should not be allow- ed and therefore it was incumbent upon the learned Judge to allow the amendment so as to meet the new case put up by the plaintiff by producing a fresh evidence. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances in my opinion the order passed by the learned trial Judge is neither proper nor legal. He ought to have allowed the application of the defendants for amendment of the written statement so as to meet the case of the plaintiff as changed by the production of the said certificate. ( 9 ) THE order of the learned Civil Judge Senior Division Narol dated 16-12-1983 below exhibit 76 in Special Civil Suit No. 30 of 1980 is set aside. The defendants will be permitted to amend the written statement as prayed for. The Civil Revision Application is therefore allowed with costs. Rule made absolute. .