JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - This is a revision against the judgment dated April 17, 1985 by which the learned Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision and upheld the order of the trial court dated June 15, 1984. The trial court rejected the amendment application filed by the defendant. 2. Heard the learned counsels and perused the file. 3. The facts of the case are that on April 20, 1971 Ram Gopal and others filed U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against Dhumman, a suit under Sections 229-B/176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against Dhumman, Deo Kumar, Vidyawati and others on the allegation that Vidyawati executed three sale deeds in the year 1968 in favour of the plaintiffs and therefore they acquired right over land in suit. On July 1, 1971 written statement was filed by Dhumman, and Sheo Kumar denying the allegations of the plaintiff and inter alia alleged that the alleged sale deeds were not genuine and the defendants have right over the land in suit. Then an amendment application was filed by Defendant Dhumman on June 11, 1984 with a prayer that in para 34 the following addition may be done: "Vivadaspad Bainama Jot Dhara 22, U.P. Co-op. Vikas Bank Adhiniyam 16, 1984 ke adeshanusar bhi Shoonya, Avaidh va amanya hai." 4. The trial court rejected this application on the ground that it is alleged by the plaintiff that the loan taken has already been paid off, thus it has become infructuous and it was filed only to delay the proceedings. On these grounds the amendment application was rejected. The learned Additional Commissioner has held that the amendment application was filed after 13 years and it was filed to delay the proceedings hence the revision was also dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that merely on technical ground the amendment should not be rejected. No irreparable loss or injustice is being done if the amendment is allowed and it was only a legal point hence the same should have been accepted. 6. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that merely on technical ground the amendment should not be rejected. No irreparable loss or injustice is being done if the amendment is allowed and it was only a legal point hence the same should have been accepted. 6. The learned counsel for the other side has contended that the courts below have properly exercised the jurisdiction in not allowing the amendment application because it was delayed and he has relied on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gauri Shanker v. Hindustan Trust Ltd, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2091-95 as follows:- "The respondent waited for 8 years before seeking an amendment to include a plea on the absence of such a notice. The trial court did allow the amendment but in our opinion no such amendment should have been allowed an account of gross delay and laches on the part of the respondent in raising such a plea. In such matters it must be remembered that if a technical plea of the nature sought to be raised at an earlier stage the appellant could have withdrawn the petition for eviction with a fresh petition after serving the requisite notice." In the present case on May 14, 1984 witnesses were examined by the plaintiff. The application has been filed after a long time and both the courts below have given reasons for not allowing the amendment application. 7. When there is a question of delay and laches and the application has been decided on this very ground, the points in respect of other things is not at all to be considered while disposing of the application. The principles laid down for granting or rejecting the amendment application on merits are not then in issue. The application has been rejected on the ground of delay and laches hence in my opinion, the principles in respect of other points for granting or rejecting the application is not to be considered while disposing of this appeal. 8. There does not appeal to be any jurisdictional error or error apparent on the face of it. Hence in my opinion, there is no ground for interference with the lower court's order. I therefore, dismiss the revision. Costs easy.