Honble GODARA, J. – This Civil Revision Petition has been moved under Section 115, C.P.C. thereby challenging the order dated 18.1.96 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) No. 6, Jodhpur in the Civil Original Suit No. 151/95 thereby disallowing amendment application filed under O. 6, R. 17, C.P.C. by the defendant-petitioner. (2). Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the plaintiff-non petitioner filed suit for eviction inter alia on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity for the use of her own as well as that of her family members which is being resisted by the defendant-petitioner who has challenged the averments of such reasonable and bona fide necessity of the plaintiff-non-petitioner and it has been further alleged that the plaintiff is motivated by greed and with a view to re-let out suit premises after ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises, on a higher and exorbitant rent. (3). The trial Court framed necessary issues and started recording evidence of the parties. The plaintiff, besides herself, examined P.W. 2 Deep Chand, P.W. 3 Lal Chand and P.W. 4 Murli Manohar who are her sons. Plaintiff Harak Lal and his wife D.W. 2 Smt. Manju Mathur have also been examined. (4). It was on 2.11.95 that the defendant moved an application for amendment in his written statement alleging that, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff and members of her family had newly constructed and acquired additional accom- modation by way of constructing a new house on plot No. 19 in Dev Nagar situated on the Pal Link Road in Jodhpur itself and a house-warming ceremony was celebrated on 14-10-94 and the invitation cards for the same were issued in the name of the plaintiff Smt. Maggi Devi. Besides, it was also alleged that the plaintiff let-out a portion of her plot No. 817-A situated just adjacent to her own residential house on Plot Nzo. 816 (Sardarpura, Jodhpur) measuring 16x 40 to one Shri Suresh Vyas subsequent to the institution of the suit and during the pendency of the suit. Besides, it was also alleged that the plaintiff let-out a portion of her plot No. 817-A situated just adjacent to her own residential house on Plot Nzo. 816 (Sardarpura, Jodhpur) measuring 16x 40 to one Shri Suresh Vyas subsequent to the institution of the suit and during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid allegations it was pleaded that since the plaintiff had acquired additional accommodation by way of construction and occupation of a new house situated on the Pal Link Road, Jodhpur and that a vacant plot let-out to Shri Suresh Vyas was also available to the, plaintiff and in case she was bona fide in need of any additional accommodation, she could have, as is her case during the pendency of this suit, raised a new construction on the vacant plot before it was let-out to Suresh Vyas. Because of these new developments and subsequent events that took place during the pendency of the suit, it was requested that amendment by way of addition of Paras Nos. 14 and 15 respectively in the written statement may be allowed. This was supported by an affidavit filed by Shri Vijay Lat Mathur. (5). However, the plaintiff-non petitioner refuted all these allegations maintaining that, as also originally pleaded in the plaint itself, Ram Kishore, because of inadequate accommodation, was already residing in a rented house separate from his mother and other family members. However, during the pendency of this suit Ram Kishore has builtup a new house on the Pal Link Road, in Dev Nagar who was living in the same along with his family and rest of the family members including the plaintiff herself did not reside in the house so built and occupied by Ram Kishore. (6). Likewise, as regards the plot alleged to have been let-out to Suresh Vyas it has also been pleaded that Suresh Vyas, has let-out this portion of the vacant land about eight years back by Nirmal Kumar who is also son of the plaintiff and is presently carrying on his business at Mysore and, therefore, the allegation that any vacant plot was let-out to Suresh Vyas during the pendency of this suit and this fact is an event having happened subsequent to the institution and during the pendency of this suit is wholly false and far from truth. (7). (7). The learned trial Judge after hearing both the sides vide his impugned, order held that those facts, which are sought to be pleaded by way of amendment and addition in the written statement, are already in the pleadings and evidence of both the parties. Accordingly, it was held that the application for amendment was belated and far from being, bona fide and the amendments so sought for, presently, are contradictory to the earlier pleadings as well as evidence already existing on record and, accordingly, vide impugned order the prayer for amendment was disallowed, with a costs of Rs. 200/- and hence, being aggrieved, the defendant pe- titioner has preferred this petition, as above. (8). 1 have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the non-petitioner and also perused the legality and regularity of the impugned order and considered the same. (9). The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the plaintiff owns and is possessed of huge property. Her own residential house is quite big and accommodations built up on Plot No. 816 while the suit property is situated on the adjoining Plot No. 817-A and five to six other co-tenants are also in occupation of the property. Besides, Suresh Vyas was let-out a vacant plot during the pendency of the suit or, any how, about the period when the present suit was instituted which further shows that the personal need so pleaded by the plaintiff is far from bona fide otherwise she could have very well kept the plot vacant and, in case so desirous, she could have also built up an additional accommodation thereon but instead the same stands let-out to Suresh Vyas. In these circumstances, when Ram Kishore has built up a new house which is also quite accommodations and the plaintiff as well as her sons barring Deep Chand and Murli Manohar have pleaded ignorance about construction and accommodation of a new house by Ram Kishore and, however, P.W, 3 Lal Chand has clearly admitted that Ram Kishore has built up a new house in Dev Nagar on Plot No. 1 9 on the Pal Link Road, Jodhpur and, in these circumstances, his further submission is that when invitation cards for house-warming ceremony were issued in the name of the plaintiff who is none but the real mother of Ram Kishore, since the plaintiff has brought this action mainly on the ground of hers is a large family having five married sons and equal number of married daughters along with their grand-children etc. and, therefore, when a new house has been built and; occupied, this has provided an additional suitable accommodation to the plaintiff and it, on the face of admission of the plaintiff herself that her son Nirmal Kumar is carrying on business at Mysore, it leaves no further bona fide necessity for construction of additional accommodation for, which eviction of the petitioner is sought from the suit premises and, accordingly, since these facts are not specifically pleaded and they go to the root of the suit. disproving any reasonable need of the plaintiff or his family members for construction of any, additional accommodation on the suit premises. (10). disproving any reasonable need of the plaintiff or his family members for construction of any, additional accommodation on the suit premises. (10). However, the plaintiff had maintained that Ram Kishore, as already mentioned above, resided in a separate house because of paucity and non-availabi- lity of sufficient accommodation for his family who has, during the pendency of the suit, constructed his own house and as also admitted by the defendant himself in his statement, he has occupied a new constructed house and rest of the plaintiffs have got nothing to do with the same and, as a result, since the plaintiff as well as her witnesses have already been confronted with this fact in their cross-examina- tion while the defendant and his wife Smt. Manju Mathur also similarly stated that a new house has been constructed which is in occupation of Ram Kishore and, accordingly, this fact, as also alleged by the defendant, it became known to the defendant as early as on 14-10-94 whereas present application, has been moved on 8-11-95 and the same is not bona fide and instead it has been moved with an ul- terior motive to delay and frustrate disposal of the suit which is at its fag end. (11). Now, reverting to the merits of the petition, as regards construction of a new house in Dev Nagar situated on the Pal Link Road, Jodhpur, it has been clearly admitted by P.W. 3 Lal Chand. that a new house has been constructed whereas other prosecution witnesses have pleaded ignorance about it. However, in reply to the amendment application, moved by the defendant, the plaintiff has clearly admitted that such a new house has already been constructed on the Pal Link Road by Ram Kishore himself who was, as already pleaded in the suit itself, residing in a rented house separate from the other members of the family including the plaintiff and neither the plaintiff herself nor any of her sons had anything to do with the newly constructed house of Ram Kishore. The defendant himself has clearly stated that Ram Kishore has built up a new house on the Pal Link Road in which he is residing. The defendant himself has clearly stated that Ram Kishore has built up a new house on the Pal Link Road in which he is residing. P.W. 3, Lal Chand who is son of the plaintiff and brother of Ram Kishore, has clearly admitted that Ram Kishore has built up a house in Dev Nagar, Pal Link Road, Jodhpur and a housewarming ceremony was held, as above. Conse- quent upon this evidence, besides, the statement of D.W. 2 Smt. Manju Mathur as well, it is fully established that Ram Kishore who is son of the plaintiff, has built up and occupied a separate house situated on the Pal Link Road, Jodhpur. It is also borne out of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses that Ram Kishore along with his family is residing in the same house and he earlier resided in another rented house. The defendant himself pleaded in Para 4 of the written statement that Ram Kishore was residing in a separate rented house and that he was also carrying on his business independent of other members of the family who never wanted to live with the plaintiff while her sons Lal Chand, Deep Chand and Murli Manohar who have already appeared as witnesses from the side of the plaintiff, were only living with their family members in the House No. 816 along with their mother who is a plaintiff in this suit. It further shows that Ram Kishore was already separate In mess, residence and business from the plaintiff at the time of institution of the suit, subsequently, during the pendency of the suit, he has built up an independent house wherein he is presently residing. It further shows that Ram Kishore was already separate In mess, residence and business from the plaintiff at the time of institution of the suit, subsequently, during the pendency of the suit, he has built up an independent house wherein he is presently residing. Consequently, Ram Kishore resided separately at the time of the institution of.the suit and he has even after construction of a new house, is residing separately and this fact has been fully established by an admission made by the plaintiff herself in reply to the amendment application moved by the defendant and, in spite of own as well as that of her sons Deep Chands and Murli Manohars reluctance, P.W. 3 Lal Chand who is also son of the plaintiff, clearly admitted the fact of construction and occupation of a new house by Ram Kishore, as above, and this fact is not a subject-matter of either dispute or challenge and, therefore, this is borne out as a piece of evidence and it can be very well used by the defendant in defence of plea of the plaintiff that she requires the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for construction and raising of additional accommodation for the personal use of her family and, this fact of Ram Kishores having constructed and occupied a separate house of his own, can be taken into consideration by the trial Court with all justification at his command while concluding whether this fact has, any how, either completely wiped off the reasonable need or a part thereof in respect of the suit premises for alleged construction of additional accommodation for other members of the family of the plaintiff herself. In this view of the fact when the plaintiff as well as the defendant have pleaded from the beginning that Ram Kishore was, admittedly, residing separate from her own rented house and, subsequently, during the pendency of the suit, he happened to have constructed and occupied the said newly constructed house, it, in the aforesaid circumstances, does not warrant any amendment in the plaint itself and, as also held in the decision of this Court in Rakesh Gupta v. Ahmed Farooq, (1), in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when this fact has been, in the manner indicated above, admitted by the plaintiffs side and so also in the evidence of the defen- dant himself besides by P.W. 3 Lal Chand and D.W. 2 Smt. Manju Mathur, presently, by way of amendment, the defendant cannot be allowed to travel beyond and against the case unfolded in the cross-examination of the plaintiffs witnesses and the admissions that are made in his own statement along with the original pleadings in the written statement itself as stated above. (12). The another contention of the learned counsel for defendant-petitioner is that the invitation cards of house-warming ceremony celebrated and concluded on 14.10.94 were issued in the name of Smt. Maggi Devi who is mother of Ram Kishore and it further lends corroboration to the plea of the defendant that since she was also residing jointly with her son and, therefore, the cards were issued in her house otherwise there was no justification for issuance of such invitation cards by the plaintiff in her own name, as has also been clearly stated by P.W. 3 Lal Chand, because of family and social tradition and out of regards, as is most usual, the name of the plaintiff was printed on the invitation cards which were meant for presence of the invitees on the occasion of house-warming ceremony built by Ram Kishore. The evidence led by the parties has clearly shown that the plaintiff is residing in her own House No. 816 as are the pleadings of the defendant as welland there is no evidence against the same and the plaintiff herself has not challenged that she has left or vacated her house in Sardarpura, Jodhpur and has, instead, moved to or started residing in the newly constructed house of Ram Kishore. (13). (13). In this view of the fact, though this ceremony was, admittedly, celebrated on 14-10-94 whereas the plaintiff moved present amendment application on 2-11-95 for which there is no reasonable explanation and it shows that the defendant purposely waited for long till completion of evidence of the parties to move for such an amendment to have another inning to delay and frustrate disposal of the suit which is, at present, on the verge of its disposal. Consequently, the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Judge and the reasons given in support thereof, do not appear to be illegal or suffering from any material irregularity or jurisdictional or legal infirmity and, consequently, this amendment was rightly disallowed. (14). However, by way of clarification, it may be observed that the fact of cons- truction and occupation of a separate independent house built by Ram Kishore which is, admittedly, in his use and occupation, can be taken note of while considering the reasonable and bona fide need of the plaintiff for vacation of the suit premises on the basis of amendment application so moved by the defendant and the same fact having been admitted to by the plaintiff as well without any format amendment in the written statement itself. Besides, in case so desired, the defendant can, in case he has not already completed his evidence, adduce further evidence running not contrary to the original pleadings as well as to the statements of the defendant and those of his own witnesses examined so far. (15). As regards the second amendment, as already discussed above, in Para 4 of the written statement, it has been clearly pleaded that some vacant land was available in Plot No. 816 on which residential house of the plaintiff is situated wherein she is, admittedly, residing. Besides, it has also been clearly pleaded that vacant land was available to the plaintiff on Plot No. 817-A of which the suit premises also formed a part and that the vacant land already let out to a tenant for running a Trolley Workshop as well as Amar Multi Works. Besides, it has also been clearly pleaded that vacant land was available to the plaintiff on Plot No. 817-A of which the suit premises also formed a part and that the vacant land already let out to a tenant for running a Trolley Workshop as well as Amar Multi Works. The plaintiff as also her witnesses admitted that the vacant plot of land was let-out by Nirmal Kumar who is son of the plaintiff and is, presently, as not disputed by the defence side, carrying on his business at Mysore, let-out, this plot to the present occupants running Trolley Workshop and Amar Multi Works. Therefore, when this plot of land was already let-out before institution of the suit, this event of letting out this vacant portion of the Plot No. 817-A cannot be deemed to be a subsequent event having happened during the pendency of the suit so as to enable the defendant to seek amendment as requested. Suresh Vyas is the Proprietor of the Amar Multi Works whereas another plot of land has been let-out to Gyan Singh and Ladu Singh for running Tro- lley Workshop, as is also admitted by the plaintiff herself. The plaintiff as well as her witnesses have clearly stated that both the vacant pieces of the land forming part of Plot No. 817-A were let out quite before institution of the suit and they have further maintained that it was done by Nirmal Kumar who is residing at Mysore in connection with business. What is the effect of this fact, shall be evaluated and considered while adjudicating upon the issue regarding reasonable and bona fide necessity of the suit premises for the plaintiff, as above and, these facts are not, presently, under dispute and, resultantly this fact of letting out this vacant portion of the land to Amar Multi Works was within the knowledge of the defendant and he, accordingly, raised this plea in Para No.4 of his written statement as stated here- inbefore and, therefore, any prayer for amendment in this regard is far from being bona fide necessitating permission therefor. Accordingly, the learned trial Judge also did not commit any error or illegality while disallowing this amendment as well. (16). Accordingly, the learned trial Judge also did not commit any error or illegality while disallowing this amendment as well. (16). On the basis of aforesaid facts and circumstances, when all these facts have been brought on record and the parties have led this evidence and defendant has also fully, availed of opportunity of unfolding his defence in the original written statement as well as while cross-examining the witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff as well as in the statement of the defendant and his wife D.W. 2 Smt. Manju Mathur and, accordingly, specially when the amendment application was unduly delayed having been filed as late as on 2-11-95, in the aforesaid circumstances, for just decision of the suit, the amendments so warranted are neither necessary nor warranted. (17). The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the defendant has bona fide moved an application for amendment of his written state- ment which would result in and enable the defendant to prove that because of availability of reasonable and alternative accommodation to the joint family of the plaintiff, there was not bona fide need of vacation and eviction of the defendant from there and, therefore when there are allegations from the side of the defendant-petitioner, which are, in the aforesaid circumstances, not admitted in its etirety, this furnishes a valid ground for acceptance of application for amendment of the written statement to enable the parties to lead evidence thereon and, in its absence, the defendant stands deprived of this opportunity and, therefore, while rejecting his prayer therefor, the learned trial Judge has not committed illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction which has occasioned a failure of justice, but at the cost of repe- tition, it may be observed that the factum of separate residence of Ram Kishore even at Jodhpur was pleaded in the original pleadings, and the defendant came forward with a plea that since Ram Kishore was not pulling on well with the rest of the family members and hence he had opted to separate from the joint family and was so residing separately. Similarly, Nirmal Kumar is residing at Mysore and carry- ing on his business there. Similarly, Nirmal Kumar is residing at Mysore and carry- ing on his business there. Similarly, from the very beginning, the defendant has pleaded in his written statement itself that the vacant portion of the plot whereat the suit premises is also situated, had been let-out just prior to the institution of the suit, as above and, in these circumstances, this fact having already been pleaded earlier and its having not come into being so as to be permitted it as a subsequent event having happened during the pendency of the suit. There cannot be any valid justification for allowance of any amendment in this respect. (18). Therefore, on the basis of above discussion, this petition is wholly devoid of any merit and calls for no interference thereby either setting aside or modifying the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge. Besides, there is no jurisdic- tional error or any illegality in the impugned order. (19). Consequently, this Revision Petition is dismissed thereby affirming the impugned order. However, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.