JUDGMENT 1. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed this revision petition under section 115 CPC against the order dated 10.11.1995 passed by the learned Munsif, Bhilwara in civil original suit No. 197/75 whereby the learned Munsif dismissed the application filed by the petitioner - defendant under/Order 6 Rule 17. 2. The defendant moved an application u/O. 6 R. 17 and prayed that he may be allowed to raise a legal objection to the effect that the sale-deed executed by Shri Saiyed Noor Ali of 813/61 was in operative inasmuch as before making the alienation, the seller Shri Saiyed Noor Ali did not obtain prior permission of the Custodian General of India because the property in question was an evacuee property. The defendant also stated that Shri Saiyed Noor Ali migrated to Pakistan in the year 1947 and permanently settled there. The above sale-deed was executed in contravention of the provisions contained in Sections 40 & 41 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act,,1950. The application was opposed by the plaintiff on the ground that the allegation made by the defendant that Shri Saiyed Noor Ali migrated to Pakistan was absolutely baseless and false. According to the plaintiffs, Shri Saiyed Noor Ali and his family never left India. The defendant Amanat Rai filed a suit on 14.2.1964 against the legal representatives of Shri Saiyed Noor Ali and the plaintiffs for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 8.2.1961 and in para 2, Amanat Rai alleged that Shri Saiyed Noor Ali was residing in Virgod, Distt. Bhilwada. It was never alleged in that suit that Saiyed Noor Ali had migrated to Pakistan. If that fact had been true, Amanat Rai could have definitely alleged this in the above suit. It was further alleged by the plaintiffs that the validity and legality of the sale-deed dated 8.2.1961 has been upheld by this Court in case No. 115/64. It was also denied that the property in question is an evacuee property. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendant has not explained that this plea was taken early. 3. The learned trial Court by the impugned order dismissed the above application. Learned trial Court has observed that the present suit has been pending since 1975. The defendant filed written statement in the year 1977. The learned Munsif also perused the jugment of the High Court in which the legal position in respect of the sale-deed dated 8.2.1961 was explained. The learned trial Court by the impugned order dismissed the above application. Learned trial Court has observed that the present suit has been pending since 1975. The defendant filed written statement in the year 1977. The learned Munsif also perused the jugment of the High Court in which the legal position in respect of the sale-deed dated 8.2.1961 was explained. The plaintiff closed his evidence. The defendant, then filed this petition. The obvious object of the petitioner is to delay the suit. 4. I have considered the arguments. It cannot be denied that the Court has got ample discretion while exercising the powers conferred by O. 6 R. 17 and normally allows an amendment which is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy. The main considerations which are borne in mind while the question of amendment of pleadings are the advancement of the interest of substantial justice and the avoidance of the multiplicity of litigation. However, a party cannot seek indulgence of the Court seeking amendment and create hurdles in the disposal of the matter. In the instant case, the amendment sought by the petitioner was not a question of law but involves determination of facts which have been hotly disputed by the non-petitioners. If Saiyed Noor Ali had left India for good and settled in Pakistan as a result of migration, the petitioner ought to have known this fact. The suit has been pending since 1975 and at such a belated stage if the petitioner tries to convince the Court that he was not in the know of this important fact, he cannot succeed. The trial Court has also referred to the decision of this High Court in which the above document was considered. 5. For the above reasons, the learned trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional or factual error in dismissing the application of the petitioner. 6. There is no force in the revision petition and it is hereby dismissed with costs.Revision dismissed. *******