Honble JAIN, J. – The defendant No. 2 petitioner has filed this revision petition u/s. 115 CPC against the order dated 21.8.1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Bikaner whereby the application filed by the petitioner for seeking amendment u/O. VI, R. 17 CPC was disallowed. (2). The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the plaintiff non-petitioner No. 1 filed a suit against the defendants for the ejectment and arrears of rent inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff required the suit premises bona fide and reasonably for the business of his son Suresh Kumar. (3). The defendant-petitioner has alleged that very recently plaintiffs son Suresh Kumar has started jewellery business at Bikaner and after preparing the fini- shed goods, he is supplying the same at Surat and on account of happening of this specific event, now no reasonable and bona fide necessity survives in favour of the plaintiff. (4). The application was stoutly opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that the averments made in the application were wholly wrong and malicious and the only object of the above amendment was to delay the decision of the matter. The amendment was moved after about 11 long years. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that the above amendment was not relevant for the just and proper decision of the suit. The learned trial Court was also of the opinion that the defendants were guilty of delaying tactics inasmuch as the above application was filed after the lapse of about 11 long years. The application was, therefore, dismissed. (5). I have heard Mr. Babu Lal Khatri, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant-petitioner and have carefully gone through the record of the case. (6). Mr. Babulal Khatri, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the above amendment was necessitated on account of the happening of this specific event. According to him, the plaintiff required the suit premises bona fide and reasonable for the business of his son Suresh Kumar at Bikaner and in the changed circumstances, on such alleged bona fide and reasonable requirement exist in favour of the plaintiff. (7). According to him, the plaintiff required the suit premises bona fide and reasonable for the business of his son Suresh Kumar at Bikaner and in the changed circumstances, on such alleged bona fide and reasonable requirement exist in favour of the plaintiff. (7). The learned counsel has submitted that since the above event occurred recently and, therefore, the defendant ought to have been allowed this amendment because it will go to the very root of the matter and is very essential and vital for bringing out the real controversy between the parties. The learned counsel has submitted that the above amendment will not alter the nature of the suit and no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff. He also pointed out that while passing the impugned order, the learned trial Court also tendered its opinion that if the defendants prove that Suresh Kumar works at Suratgarh, even then no effect will be made on the merits of the case. This expression of opinion about the merits of the matter is unwarranted and this Honble Court has disapproved such practice. In Ajeet Kumar Jain vs. Smt. Urmila Sharma (1). I have considered the submissions made at the bar. The learned trial Court has held that the case is now fixed for final arguments and the defendants moved this application after about 11 years from the date of the institution of the suit. During the course of arguments, I put to the learned counsel to enlighten the Court whether Suresh Kumar has taken any premises on rent for carrying on his business and if so, what is his address. The learned counsel then replied that Suresh Kumar is doing his business in some residential portion and no details were given. It may be noted that the correctness of the allegation is open to doubt. The amendment which is bona fide and has got a bona fide truthful basis should only be allowed at the final stage. (8). The plaintiff has categorically and specifically denied the above fact. The defendant has very vaguely stated that very recently, the plaintiffs son Suresh Kumar has started jewellery business and for doing such business, some licences etc are obtained, some orders are also obtained and executed. Except making a bald allegation, no substantial facts has been stated to verify these facts. The plaintiff has categorically and specifically denied the above fact. The defendant has very vaguely stated that very recently, the plaintiffs son Suresh Kumar has started jewellery business and for doing such business, some licences etc are obtained, some orders are also obtained and executed. Except making a bald allegation, no substantial facts has been stated to verify these facts. There can be no dispute that if amendment is bona fide it can be allowed even if it is at a very belated stage so that real justice can be done between the parties. However, if the amendment is not bona fide and, has been sought probably for delaying the matter, the same can never be allowed. Looking to the nature of the amendment sought in the case, which is bereft of essential details or particulars, the same cannot be allowed. (9). The case-laws cited by Mr. Khatri only propounds the principle of law regarding which there is no dispute. The facts of the case, however, do not pursuade me to disagree with the view taken by the learned Civil Judge. (10). For the reasons stated herein above, I find no substance in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed summarily.