JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 18-2-86 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jaipur allowing an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, for amending the written statement. 2. The plaintiff- petitioners Karim Bux and Noor Mohd. filed a suit in the year 1968 for permanent injunction against the defendant non-petitioners, with the allegations that the defendants were trying to forcibly dispossess the plaintiffs from the land in dispute and were interfering with their peaceful possession. Hence, they should be bound down by means of a permanent injunction. The allegations were denied in the written statement is the parties was recorded and the case was fixed for final arguments on 15.8.85 but was being adjourned. On 26.10.1985. an application was moved by the learned counsel for the non- petitioner No. 1 that the suit is not maintainable under the Rajasthan Waqfs Act, to which a reply was filed, opposing the said application and the case was fed for arguments on the said application. On 30th November, 1985, learned advocate for the non-petitioner Waqf Board did not want to argue the said application but instead moved an application for amendment of the written statement. A reply to the amendment application was also filed and amendment sought for was opposed. After hearing the arguments, the said application for amendment of the written statement, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, was allowed by the learned court below under its impugned order dated 18.2.1986. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed by the plaintiffs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial court has seriously erred in allowing amendment in the written statement after a protracted trial for 17 years at the stage of final arguments. The Waqf Board, though a party and represented by a counsel did not take up the plea of want of notice under section 56 of the Waqf Act in the original written statement and it amounted to waiver by conduct and therefore, the amendment in this regard should not have been allowed. The Waqf Board, though a party and represented by a counsel did not take up the plea of want of notice under section 56 of the Waqf Act in the original written statement and it amounted to waiver by conduct and therefore, the amendment in this regard should not have been allowed. In this connection reliance has been placed on a full bench decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Girdhari Lal (1959 R.L.W. 170) wherein this Court with regard to an objection of notice under section 80 C.P.C. observed that the plea as to want of notice or insufficiency of notice was not raised by the State and no issue was framed on this question. This was not allowed to be taken at the stage of appeal as it amounted to waiver of the objection. To the same effect are the observations made in Municipal Board Nimbaheda v. Sved Ashkhli (1968 R L.W. 407). Such an objection cannot be taken after such a great delay and the defendants are guilty of laches. In this connection, reliance has been placed on Gouri Shankar v. M/s Hindustan Trust (Pvt) Ltd. and others, ( AIR 1972 SC 2091 ) wherein it has been observed that when plea of absence of a valid notice terminating the contractual tenancy was not taken in the original written statement. amendment to include the plea after 8 years should not be allowed on account of gross delay and laches. 4. Reliance has been placed on M/s Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd and another v. M/s Ladha Ram & Co. ( AIR 1977 SC 680 ) wherein it has been observed that the defendants should not be allowed to amend the written statement after three years when it amounted to introducing an entirely different case and likely to prejudice the other side. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Jagan Nath v. Chander Bhan and others, (1988) 3 SCC 57 ) wherein it has been observed that the amendment which, if allowed, will take away valuable right of the opposite party and constitute an altogether new plea, cannot be permitted. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Jagan Nath v. Chander Bhan and others, (1988) 3 SCC 57 ) wherein it has been observed that the amendment which, if allowed, will take away valuable right of the opposite party and constitute an altogether new plea, cannot be permitted. 6. Reliance has also been placed on Rachhya Singh and another v. Ram Ran Bijai Prasad Singh and others (AIR 1973 Patna 179) wherein it has been observed that amendment of pleadings that will change the nature of the case or that will oust the jurisdiction of the court trying suit, should not be allowed, when the amendment had been sought for after eight years of the filing of the suit. So also in Gadadhar Das v. Jatindra Nath Das and others (AIR 1981 Orissa 142) it has been held that an amendment to oust the jurisdiction should ordinarily not be granted particularly on a belated application for amendment. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Section 56 of the Waqf Act is not applicable in the present case and has also relied on some author ties in this connection which are not necessary to be mentioned as it is not necessary to deal with this aspect of the matter, at this stage. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-petitioners has very vehemently argued that this court in revision should not interfere with the order allowing amendment in the pleadings since there is no error of jurisdiction or with regard to material irregularities in the procedure. It has been submitted that the court should be very lenient in allowing amendment and the amendment can be allowed at any stage. even at the stage of arguments before the Supreme Court, as has been held in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon ( AIR 1969 SC 1267 ) wherein it has been observed as under : 'Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure. The Court always gives leave to amend the pleading of a party unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide, or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which may not be compensated for by an order of costs. However, negligent or careless may have been the first omission, and however, late the proposed amendment, the amendment may be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side." 9. Reliance has also been placed on Janki Lal Ram Das v. Mohan Das ( 1986 RLR 433 ) wherein it has been observed that while dealing with an application for amendment the court is only required to see as to whether amendment sought to be made is absolutely furious or raise a plausible plea which can be raised by a party to the suit. If the plea sought to be raised goes to the root of the matter, amendment in the written statement should be allowed for proper and effectual determination of dispute. 10. My attention has also been drawn to Badri Prasad v. Ram Prasad (1962 R. L. W. 696) wherein it has been observed that the object of the court is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for mistakes they make in the conduct of their cases. The courts do not exist for the sake of discipline but for sake of deciding matters in controversy. 11. Reliance has also been placed on AIR 1969 Orissa 267 wherein amendment was allowed at the belated stage. 12. My attention has also been drawn to Ghani Mohammed v. Meeru Khan (1954 R.L.W. 169) wherein at the stage of second appeal the case was remanded to the trial court for giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to amend the plaint. 13. He has further relied on Anitha Swain v. Nilakantha Biswal (AIR 1969 Orissa 267) wherein their lordships observed that mere delay or lack of glance by itself is not a ground for refusing amendment in the written statement. 14. He has also drawn my attention to Dr. Mrs. 13. He has further relied on Anitha Swain v. Nilakantha Biswal (AIR 1969 Orissa 267) wherein their lordships observed that mere delay or lack of glance by itself is not a ground for refusing amendment in the written statement. 14. He has also drawn my attention to Dr. Mrs. Sarojini Pradhan v. Khirode Chandra Pradhan, (AIR 1973 Orissa 214) wherein it has been held that amendment in the written statement availing new legal stand deserves to be allowed and should not be refused merely on the ground of unusual delay. 15. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter and have also gone through the record of the case as also the impugned order. 16. It is no doubt true that the amendment is being sought after nearly 17 years of the filing of the suit but mere delay by itself cannot disentitle the party seeking amendment, to amend the written statement. It is also true that the amendment could have been sought earlier as the defendants were being represented by an Advocate in the trial court but on account of mere negligence on the part of the party or his counsel, amendment should not be disallowed. The amendment sought is of purely legal nature. It is not necessary at this stage for me to go into the nicety of the question as to whether the amendment if allowed, will be a valid ground or not. The court is only to see whether the amendment sought is absolutely frivolous or raises a plausible plea which can he raised by a party to the suit. In the present case, amendment sought being purely legal goes to the root of the matter and therefore, I am of the opinion that the amendment has been rightly allowed. Moreover, sitting in revision under section 115 Civil Procedure Code this court should not lightly interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court in allowing amendment when the other side can be compensated by payment of cost. 17. In this view of the matter, this revision petition is dismissed as having no substance. No order as to costs.Revision dismissed. *******