JUDGMENT : P.P. Gupta, J. The Petitioner-Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction against the Defendant-Respondents in respect of land described at the foot of the plaint. The suit lingered on for about 23 years and was ultimately dismissed on merits. Aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the trial court the Plaintiff filed an appeal in the court of District Judge. In appeal the Plaintiff moved an application praying to insert the following paragraph 12-A in the plaint by way of amendment; 12-A. That otherwise also, the plain tiff/deity was the Sir holder of the property in question which was assessed in Uttar Pradesh to the land revenue less than Rs. 250.00 annually and by operation of law, the deity became the bhumidhar automatically of the property in question. The Defendants No. 2 and 3 had no right or interest in the property in question. The amendment was opposed on behalf of the Defendants. Ultimately the appellate court rejected this application for amendment. Against the rejection order dated 1-8-91 the Plaintiff has filed the present writ petition. 2. The case of the Plaintiff in amendment application (Annexure 4' to the writ petition) was that the property in question was the "Sir" at the relevant time and the document showing the land as "Sir" was on record. It was on account of accidental slip that this fact could cot be mentioned in the plaint. It was, therefore, with a view to clarify the pleadings and to avoid any technical objections and controversy at the time of argument that the amendment was sought. 3. The contentions raised by the Defendants opposing the amendment sought were that it has never been the case of the Plaintiff that the land in dispute was "Sir" either of the Plaintiff or his predecessor-in-title or it was ever cultivated. On the contrary the plaint case was that the land was a grove and at the time abolition of Zamindari there was a building, PARAO, trees and some portion of land was put to casual cultivation. 4. The objections raised by the Defendant found favour with the appellate court below resulting into rejection of the amendment application. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents were heard and the record of the case was also perused. 6. 4. The objections raised by the Defendant found favour with the appellate court below resulting into rejection of the amendment application. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondents were heard and the record of the case was also perused. 6. The amendment application (Annexure 4') nowhere mention that the land in dispute was ever the "Sir" of the Plaintiff at the relevant time. It only mentions that "the property in question was the 'Sir' at the relevant time in accordance with the UP ZA & LR Act which was assessed in Uttar Pradesh to the land revenue less than Rs. 250/- annually. The legal effect of the same was that the deity-Appellant became the Bhumidhar in view of Section 18 (wrongly mentioned as Section (6) of the Uttar Pradesh ZA Act." It is further mentioned that on account of accidental slip, the aforesaid facts could not be mentioned in the plaint. It is now to be seen whether it is a bona fide assertion. 7. The suit was filed on 6-2-1964. It was dismissed on 28-11-1987. Thus, it lingered on for more than 23 1/2 years. It was about one and a half years after the dismissal of the suit that the amendment was sought on 5-3-1989. The reason mentioned is 'accidental slip' which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be convincing or believable. Even till now the Plaintiff has not filed any document showing the disputed land as "Sir" of the Plaintiff. The fact is that accordingly the Plaintiff came across with a Khatauni extract of 1309 Fasley (Annexure 6' to the writ petition) in which the land in dispute was recorded as "Sir" of Babu Chandra Bhan Kashi, the predecessor-in-title of the Plaintiff-deity. It is an old document pertaining to the corresponding calendar year 1901. As has been said 'earlier, there is neither any document recording the disputed land as "Sir" of the Plaintiff nor there has been any assertion in the plaint that it was "Sir" of the Plaintiff which continued till the abolition of Zamindari. So it was not an 'accidental slip' or omission in the plaint as mentioned by the Plaintiff but It was accidental discovery that Khatauni of 1309 Fasli recorded the disputed land as "Sir" of Bubu Chandra Bhan which prompted the Plaintiff to move the amendment application. So it was not an 'accidental slip' or omission in the plaint as mentioned by the Plaintiff but It was accidental discovery that Khatauni of 1309 Fasli recorded the disputed land as "Sir" of Bubu Chandra Bhan which prompted the Plaintiff to move the amendment application. There is no assertion that after the creation of an endowment in favour of the Plaintiff, the land did not lose its character as "Sir" and thereafter the Plaintiff became the "Sir" holder of the disputed land and that he continued its Sir holder till the abolition of Zamindari and thereby became Bhumidhar u/s 18 of the UP ZA Act on abolition of Zamindari. It is significant to note that the Plaintiff has himself admitted in para 8 of his supplementary rejoinder affidavit that the disputed land was not recorded as "Sir" in the last settlement of 1923-24 corresponding to 1331 Fasli. So, the amendment sought, in the circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be bona fide. The purpose is to linger on the matter indefinitely. 8. It may also be seen as to what was the case of the Plaintiff in the plaint. In paras 5 and 6 of the plaint, the disputed land was described as a grove, which was further amplified in para 8 of the plaint. Para 8 of the plaint runs as below: 8. That the land within Khurd Bagh in suit was utilised as grove as well as for casual cultivation for growing wheat grams etc. as nursery for garden plants grazing ground for cows, for the Rajbhog and sewa of the Plaintiff. Some portion of the grove was used for staying pilgrims and as cattle Dharamshala (known as Parav) for the use of the Plaintiff as public. That there has been a common gate for ingress; and out grass of the aforesaid building i.e. the building over the area of Bagh Kalan and Bagh Khurd. That the area of Bagh Khurd is surrounded by pucca boundary walls having height of about 10 feet height having a pucca constructed building over an area of about 8 biswas pucca and, other construction for staying and residence of pilgrims etc. besides it there has been a big wall and trees. That the area of Bagh Khurd is surrounded by pucca boundary walls having height of about 10 feet height having a pucca constructed building over an area of about 8 biswas pucca and, other construction for staying and residence of pilgrims etc. besides it there has been a big wall and trees. That all the building were in existence much prior to abolition of Zamindari and after the causing of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition Act the land in question being under neath of the building, wall, trees and the land appurtenant thereto and the main building of the temple vested in the Plaintiff by virtue of the Section 9 of Uttar Pradesh ZA Act. In para 10, it is mentioned that the Defendants 2 to 4 acting in collusion secretly devised a plan to convert the use of Khurd Bagh and to convert it into an agricultural land. In para 11 of the plaint it is asserted that "the Defendant No. 4 fraudulently and collusively permitted the IInd and IIIrd Defendants to claim Bhumidhari rights in the said Khurd Bagh wrongly alleging to be an agricultural land when it was a grove and trust property." Again no memo of appeal (Annexure 'CA 17' to the counter affidavit) the Plaintiff mentioned that the property in dispute was a building. In ground No. 10 it is asserted that the property in suit "was not agricultural land but building". The same is reiterated in ground No. 12. In ground No. 11 it is mentioned that "the cultivation on the small part of the land which is appurtenant to the main building cannot be deemed to be agricultural land and as such cultivation on the said land cannot change the nature of the land of the Bagh Khurd and Parav." 9. It, therefore, becomes abundantly clear from the admitted case of the Plaintiff that the disputed land was a grove which in course of time was converted into a building having trees and cultivation in a small portion of it. It was on these averments that the Plaintiff claimed vesting of the land in him u/s 9of the UP ZA Act. The Plaintiff never pleaded or admitted that the disputed land was ever put under cultivation. It is settled that origin of any "Sir" land should necessarily be cultivatory in character. It was on these averments that the Plaintiff claimed vesting of the land in him u/s 9of the UP ZA Act. The Plaintiff never pleaded or admitted that the disputed land was ever put under cultivation. It is settled that origin of any "Sir" land should necessarily be cultivatory in character. The Plaintiff by taking the case of "Sir" now wants to change the nature of the suit. 10. The Plaintiff had taken the case of a grove and building in the plaint. He was unsuccessful in it. He cannot, therefore, be permitted to raise a new plea as the same cannot be said to be necessary for determining the real questions in controversy between the parties completely and effectively. In the case of Ganeshi Rai v. I Addl. District Judge, Ghazipur 1992 ALJ 315, the learned single Judge of this Court has held: It is settled that amendment necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy can be allowed. No amendment should be allowed merely because the other side can be compensated by costs. Where a party has been unsuccessful on a plea, a new plea by him cannot be said to be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy. It is incumbent upon the Court to see that amendment besides being necessary for the purpose of determining the real matter in controversy must not cause injustice to the other side. Under the cover of seeking amendment it is not open to any party to substitute a new cause of action or to change the nature of the suit or to substitute the subject-matter of the suit except when the Court thinks it just and necessary. Further, a new case based upon the facts which were available to the Plaintiff as the time of the original plaint and which were not added in the original plaint, cannot be permitted to be set up by way of amendment at appellate stage. So also, where a fresh suit on an amended plaint would be barred by limitation, the Court is right in taking view that the injury cannot be compensated by costs and the amendment in such circumstances deserves to be refused. 11. So also, where a fresh suit on an amended plaint would be barred by limitation, the Court is right in taking view that the injury cannot be compensated by costs and the amendment in such circumstances deserves to be refused. 11. It was argued on behalf of the Plaintiff that amendment can be allowed at any stage of the suit and since an appeal is in continuation of suit, the amendment can be allowed in appeal also. There can be no dispute about this legal preposition. It may, however, be emphasised that it is not correct to say that however negligent or careless may have been the first omission and however late proposed amendment, the same should be allowed if it could be allowed without prejudice to the other side. After the decision of the trial court the rights of the parties were determined and no new plea which was available in the trial court should have been ordinarily allowed. Unless there is some explanation as to why the plea proposed to be taken by way of amendment of the plaint was not taken earlier during the pendency of the suit in the trial court is coming forward the amendment should not be allowed. 12. In the instant case there was no cogent explanation in the application why the plea raised in appeal could not be taken in the trial court. The plea of 'accidental slip' is not convincing. The very fact that the application was filed during the pendency of the appeal proves that the same was not bona fide and was filed with an ulterior motive to further delay the proceedings. 13. For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the amendment sought is highly belated and is also not bona fide. It is also contrary to the pleas raised earlier in the plaint. Consequently the amendment sought in appeal, after a lapse of 25 years after the filing of the suit, has rightly been disallowed by the appellate court. The petition has, therefore, no merits and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 14. The appellate court is directed to dispose of the appeal within two months from today, Office will return the record of the case to the court below at the earliest.