JUDGMENT 1. - This litigation is amongst real brothers. Petitioner Dr. Gopi Kishan Purohit lives in Libya and his younger brother respondent Radha Kishan lives at Jodhpur. 2. A civil suit for possession is pending since 1980. Allegations are that Dr. Gopi Kishan constructed a house some time in the year 1959. Petitioner (Plaintiff) and his tenant were residing in the house till 1-11-68. Respondent (Defendant) sought permission to live in some portion of the house. It was granted and the respondent started living there. The house was being looked after by Ranchhoddas, the father of both the parties. Plaintiff came to India in 1979 in connection with marriages of his daughters and asked the defendant to vacate the portions in which he was living with permission. First the defendant agreed to do so but later on refused. Thereupon plaintiff's father, who was holding power of attorney on his behalf, sent a notice to the defendant on 14-12-1979 and ultimately filed the suit. 3. The case of the defendant was that the plot was purchased from the income of Hindu undivided family but the sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff with an idea that he may obtain loan from the State Government in order to construct house. A sum of Rs. 35,000/- was spent from Hindu undivided family account on the house. Thus the case of the defendant is that the house belong to the undivided Hindu family. Relevant issues were framed by the trial Court. Plaintiff's examination in chief was started which is lying incomplete. After death of power of attorney holder Shri Ranchhoddas the defendant moved an application to amend written statement to the effect that the plaint was not signed by Ranchhoddas nor did Ranchhoddas engage any lawyer on behalf of plaintiff and that the Vakalatnama does not bear the signature of Ranchhoddas. Instead it was the plaintiff himself who had forged signatures of Ranchhoddas on plaint and Vakalatnama. Therefore, the plaint was forged one and was liable to be dismissed. In support of this contention it was averred in the application that the defendant after the death of Ranchhoddas came to know from a letter that it was the plaintiff himself who used to put signature of Ranchhoddas. Hence the plaint and vakalatnama do not contain signatures of Ranchhoddas. In support of this contention it was averred in the application that the defendant after the death of Ranchhoddas came to know from a letter that it was the plaintiff himself who used to put signature of Ranchhoddas. Hence the plaint and vakalatnama do not contain signatures of Ranchhoddas. It was also averred that there was a Will left by Ranchhoddas on which the signature of Ranchhoddas were forged by the plaintiff. The learned trial Judge allowed the amendment. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri A. L. Chopra submitted that all those amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties allowed in subsequent pleadings. According to him it is not such an amendment. According to him it is mala fide because the plea was never taken during the life time of Ranchhoddas. According to him the purpose of defendant is to demoralise and delay the case. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Shri M.C. Bhoot submitted that the defendant came to know only after the death of Ranchhoddas that plaintiff Dr. Gopi Kishan used to put signatures of Ranchhoddas on various papers. He submitted that the defendant was not delaying the case. It is the plaintiff himself who is doing so because he lives in Libya and comes only once a year. The case is taken up on his arrival. According to him almost 17 years have passed yet the statement of the plaintiff has not been completed. Therefore, according to him it is the plaintiff who is himself delaying the proceedings. Shri Bhoot also submitted that if the plaint itself does not bear the signature of Ranchhoddas it is liable to be rejected. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments submitted by the learned counsel. To me it appears that the amendment which was sought was not bona fide. Had Ranchhoddas not signed over plaint or not signed over Vakalatnama, the plea could be taken during his life time because defendant being son of Ranchhoddas very well knew his signature. He also identified signature of his elder brother (plaintiff). To me it appears that the amendment which was sought was not bona fide. Had Ranchhoddas not signed over plaint or not signed over Vakalatnama, the plea could be taken during his life time because defendant being son of Ranchhoddas very well knew his signature. He also identified signature of his elder brother (plaintiff). The contention that the defendant came to know from a letter written by Ranchhoddas that the plaintiff himself used to make signatures of Ranchhoddas is not to be accepted as no such letter is shown to this Court. The admitted case is that plaintiff Dr. Gopi Kishan used to live in Libya. Had he been at Jodhpur at the time of filing the suit he could have himself signed the plaint and the Vakalatnama despite the fact that Ranchhoddas was his power of attorney holder. There was no need for plaintiff to sign as Ranchhoddas on the plaint as well as on vakalatnama. The purpose of the defendant appears to demoralise the plaintiff and to achieve some ulterior motive (to say that even Will is forged). 8. Of course the proceedings in the civil Court have taken many years because the statement of plaintiff is lying incomplete. The defendant cannot be accused for delaying the matter but definitely such a pleading which the defendant wants to take up now does not appear to be bona fide. I am of very clear view that this pleading is not necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. I know it for certain that the law of amendment in relation to written statement is quite lenient but this Court can very well reject such an amendment when it finds that the same is not bona fide and not necessary to determine the real question of controversy. (See 1989 (1) RLW 518, Kapur Chand Singhal v. Shri Gopal Prasad ). 9. In view of above discussion, the revision petition is allowed and the amendment application submitted on behalf of the defendant is rejected.Petition allowed. *******