JUDGMENT 1. - Defendant No. 1 petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 24-7-96 passed by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge, Churu in Civil Appeal No. 36/94 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC was dismissed. 2. The brief facts are that the plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 1 Shri Shri Chima Ram Mantri Charity Trust through its trustees filed suit for eviction and cancellation of the sale deed in the Court of District Judge, Churu. It was, inter alia, stated that the plaintiff is a registered public charitable trust and its trustees are looking after trust properties. The trust appointed Nanakram as Poojari to perform pooja in the temple of the trust on part time basis. Shri Nanakram was provided with kotharies and some land. Shri Nanakram died on 20-2-77. The trust, therefore, appointed some other poojari to perform pooja. Defendant No. 1 Jagdish Prasad started performing pooja. Defendant No. 1 then sold a portion of trust property to defendant No. 4 on 16-4-79 and further sold the same land to defendant No. 5 vide sale deed dated 21-6-79. The plaintiff have challenged the above sales and prayed for setling aside the same. The plaintiff further prayed to eject the defendants from the suit property. 3. Defendants 1 to 3 (petitioner and respondent 4 and 5) contested the above suit on the ground that they have been in continuous uninterrupted possession of the suit property as owners. In para 25 of the written statement, the defendants further challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the trust was not registered according to law. In para No. 19, objections regarding valuation of the suit property was raised and it was alleged that the Court-fee paid by the plaintiff was not sufficient. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck issues on 6-9-80. The trial Court appended a note below the issues that no issue was struck regarding insufficiency of Court-fee on the ground that the defendant did not show as to how the suit was under valued and how the Court-fee paid was insufficient. After trial, the learned trial Court decreed the suit on 28-8-93. The learned trial Court ordered for setting aside the above sale deeds dated 16-4-79 and 21-6-79 and also eviction of the defendant from the suit premises. After trial, the learned trial Court decreed the suit on 28-8-93. The learned trial Court ordered for setting aside the above sale deeds dated 16-4-79 and 21-6-79 and also eviction of the defendant from the suit premises. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree defendants 1 to 3 carried an appeal to the learned appellate Court. During the pendency of the said appeal, defendants 1 to 3 moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC on 20-10-1995 seeking to amend their written statement to incorporate detailed objections regarding under valuation of the suit property as also deficiency of Court fee. It was averred by the defendants in the above application that in the proceedings of registration of the plaintiffs trust, the plaintiffs disclosed valuation of the suit property at Rs. 50,000/- whereas in the suit, the valuation has been shown as Rs. 10,000/- only. Even the value of the land itself is not less than Rs. 2,51,035.37 p. even if the valuation of the land is calculated @ Rs. 4.39 p. per square yard. On the basis of these allegations, the defendants pleaded that the suit filed by the plaintiff was grossly under valued and the Court fee paid was not sufficient. The amendments sought by the defendants were, therefore, very essential for the determination of the controversy between the parties. The plaintiffs contested the amendment application by filing detailed reply on 18-3-96. The plaintiffs mainly resisted the application on the ground that when the issues were framed, the learned trial Court specifically and categorically mentioned the reason for not framing issues regarding valuation of the suit. The defendants had, therefore, a clear notice of the reasons for not framing the issues. The defendants did not take any action and did not seek to amend their plaint regarding averment of valuation. The defendants did not do so even during the whole trial of the suit and when the appeal was filed, the defendants moved this application which was not only inordinately delayed but also mala fide and cannot be allowed. 4. The learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, did not feel persuaded to accede to the request of the defendants on the ground that the amendment application was not bona fide and moved after inordinate delay. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the non-petitioner. 6. 4. The learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, did not feel persuaded to accede to the request of the defendants on the ground that the amendment application was not bona fide and moved after inordinate delay. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the non-petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, after narrating the facts of the case in detail, submitted that the amendment sought by the petitioner-defendant was necessary in order to present before the Court relevant material for deciding the question of jurisdiction as well as valuation and payment of Court fee. The amendment was bona fide. An application seeking amendment cannot be dismissed solely on the ground that it was belated unless the Court finds that it is mala fide. The defendants have taken objection in the written statement regarding valuation and insufficiency of Court fee though the pleading of the defendants not specific and this fact was also pointed out by the trial Court. The amendment sought by the petitioner is not after thought and it is by way of explanation of the objection taken in the written statement that the defendants have filed this application. The valuation of the subject matter of the suit further got clarified when the plaintiff took proceedings for registration of the trust and in that connection disclosed the valuation of the property. The proposed amendment will not change the nature of cause of action or the nature of controversy. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following cases:- Jairam Manoharlal v. N. B. M. Supply, Gurgaon, AIR 1969 SC 1267 , Ishwar Das v. State of M. P., AIR 1979 SC 551 and Suraj Prakash v. Rajrani, AIR 1981 SC 485 . 7-8. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner-plaintiff has submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error inasmuch as the application was moved by the defendant-petitioner after 16 years. He pointed out that the learned trial Court while framing issues on the pleadings of the parties clearly stated that since the pleading of the defendant was vague as regards the suit valuation and Court fee, no issue was being struck. The defendant has, thus, a clear notice regarding the infirmity in his pleading as regards the objection regarding valuation and deficiency in Court fee. The defendant wanted all along till the suit was decided. The defendant has, thus, a clear notice regarding the infirmity in his pleading as regards the objection regarding valuation and deficiency in Court fee. The defendant wanted all along till the suit was decided. When the appeal was filed, the defendant moved this application. The bona fides of the defendant in moving the application are apparent from his conduct and the facts narrated above. Such a belated application does not merit any consideration and the trial Court has, therefore, not committed any error in dismissing the same. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Gadhadar Das v. Jatindranath Das, AIR 1961 Orissa 142 and Shocio Prasad v. Mohan Bhai, AIR 1989 Bombay 349. 9. I have considered the rival contentions. It is not in dispute that the defendant in the written statement took an objection regarding valuation and also alleged that the Court fee paid by the plaintiff was not sufficient. However, the plaintiff was required to give particulars and his pleading ought to have been specific in this regards. It was in this view, of the matter that the trial Court declined to frame any issue even when such an objection was raised by the defendant. The defendant had, therefore, a clear notice that the Court was not framing any issue regarding the above matter. If the defendant really wanted to agitate the matter, he ought to have taken steps to amend his pleading within reasonable time. The plaintiff took his chance and waited till the suit was finally decided. He moved this application before the learned appellate Court. This clearly shows that the application filed by the defendant was not only grossly belated but was also not bona fide. If the party is aware of the necessity of amending his pleading at the initial stage and such party omits to rectify the lacunae within reasonable time, amendment after a lapse of 16 years cannot be allowed. In such a case, the bona fides of the defendant became doubtful and he is squarely guilty of laches. Normally while disposing of the application for amendment, the Court adopts liberal attitude but cannot gloss over the important settled principles according to which amendment can be allowed. One of the principles is that such application must be bona fide. The other imperative is that the late filing of the application is not a ground for rejection of the application. Normally while disposing of the application for amendment, the Court adopts liberal attitude but cannot gloss over the important settled principles according to which amendment can be allowed. One of the principles is that such application must be bona fide. The other imperative is that the late filing of the application is not a ground for rejection of the application. In the instant case, the defendant was guilty of not carrying out the amendment in time even after due notice given by the trial Court. The amendment was sought after a lapse of 16 years. The learned trial Court has, therefore, not committed any jurisdictional error warranting interference in the revisional jurisdiction.10. There is no force in the revision petition and it is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******