JUDGMENT This revision is directed against the Order dated 2.5.92 of the VIth Additional District Judge, Ujjain whereby the defendant's application for amendment under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. has been rejected. The brief history of the case is that the plaintiff-applicant is a nationalised Bank and has filed the suit against one Iqbal Ahmed defendant No.1 who took loan for purchase of Jeep. It is alleged that defendant Nos.2 and 3 stood as guarantee for the proper payment of the loan. Defendant No.1 failed to pay the loan. As such, the suit for recovery of the amount was filed. Defendant No.2 who is applicant here, filed written-statement. The case was fixed for evidence after framing the issues. It appears that at the time of evidence defendant No.2 filed application u/o 6, R.17 CPC for amendment in the pleadings. Learned trial Judge rejected the said application holding that the defendant is resiling from the earlier statement made in the W.S. and further the application for amendment is unduly delayed. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Trial Judge has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him and wrongly rejected the application. As against it, learned counsel for the non-applicant has submitted that since the defendant tried to resile from the 'earlier statement, therefore, the amendment application has rightly been rejected. So far as the second ground of rejection made in the amendment application is concerned, that cannot be upheld because the amendment-application may be allowed at the appellate stage also and, therefore, it has to be seen whether the proposed amendment is necessary for the adjudication in the matter. Counsel for the applicant has filed copy of the written-statement and the application u/o.6, Rule 17 C.P.C. it was seen by the learned counsel for the non-applicant. With the consent of both the parties both these applications were taken on record and perused during the course of arguments. On perusal of the amendment application it appears that the proposed amendment para 3 and para 9 are with respect to the fact which has been pleaded in para 3 of the written-statement. In the written-statement the defendant has pleaded that he signed the document as a witness. This shows that the document was written. It was executed and he appended his signature as a witness. In the written-statement the defendant has pleaded that he signed the document as a witness. This shows that the document was written. It was executed and he appended his signature as a witness. Now by the proposed amendment "para 3 and para 9" the defendant wants to show that his signatures were obtained on blank form to be used for other case. This amounts to resiling from the earlier statement and, therefore this aspect of the proposed amendment has rightly been rejected by the trial Court. Now so far as the amendment in para 5,6 and 10 are concerned, those are necessary for the proper adjudication in the matter. As a matter of fact, these amendments ought to have been accepted and the party (plaintiff) could be compensated by way of cost. In para 2 of the proposed amendment, the defendant has tried to make allegation against the Branch Manager who was working as such, at the time of transaction of loan but then certain unnecessary details have been put in there. If the defendant makes a direct allegation and proposes amendment to that effect on the date of appearance before the trial Court as is being directed by this Court, the same may also be accepted as pleading. In view of the discussions above, the revision is accepted and it is directed that the proposed amendments in paras 5,6 and 10 shall be allowed to be wade subject to cost of Rs.150/-. It is further directed that if the defendant makes a specific allegation about the Branch Manager that may also be allowed to be taken and the amendment to that effect be allowed. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 11.11.1992. The cost shall be paid on the same day and the amendment be made within two days thereafter. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own cost of this revision. Counsel fee Rs.100/-, if certified.