JUDGMENT 1. - The defendant petitioner has filed this revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 29.9.1994 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Bhilwara whereby the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bhilwara dismissed the application filed by the petitioner u / O. VI, R. 17 CPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Abdul Karim (since deceased) filed a suit for eviction against the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity of his son Abdul Rahim. The learned trial Court decreed the suit. Against that judgment, the defendant-petitioner preferred an appeal, which is still pending before the first appellate Court. 3. It is relevant to mention here that during the pendency of the appeal, the defendant-petitioner filed an application u/O. VI, R. 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement on account of some subsequent events occurred after the decree of the above suit. The defendant-petitioner has contended that the plaintiff Abdul Karim expired on 20.9.1989. His legal representative Rustam Ali expired on 18.2.1990 and the legal representatives of Rustam Ali have been brought on record. According to the defendant-petitioner, since Abdul Rahim had expired and, therefore, this suit is not maintainable for his necessity. In para No. 5 of the application, the defendant has averred that Abdul Rahim purchased Shop No. 17 situated near Suchana Kendera, Bhilwara from one Surendra Singh and had also taken its possession. However, the above allegation has been denied by the plaintiff. 4. After hearing both the parties on the application u /O. VI, R. 17 CPC, the learned lower Court dismissed this application by its order dated 29.9.1994. Hence this revision petition. 5. I have heard Mr. D.S. Shishodia the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Bhansali, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. 6. Normally power to allow amendment is liberally exercised and as a general rule of law, an amendment is allowed so as to enable the real question in issue between the parties to be raised on the plaint. In the instant case, the amendment sought by the defendant requires scrutiny. 6. Normally power to allow amendment is liberally exercised and as a general rule of law, an amendment is allowed so as to enable the real question in issue between the parties to be raised on the plaint. In the instant case, the amendment sought by the defendant requires scrutiny. The defendant has made an allegation that Abdul Rahim purchased shop No. 17 from one Surendrasingh son of Sobhaghsingh resident of Bhilwara and has also obtained possession of it. The allegation made in para No. 4 of the amendment application is ambiguous inasmuch as the defendant has not specified when the said property was purchased and what was its consideration and whether a sale deed thereof was registered or not. While admitting the revision petition, this Court vide its order dated 16.12.1994 specifically directed the petitioner to furnish prima facie proof of alleged purchase of shop No. 17 from said Surendrasingh. However, no further particulars have been furnished by the defendant-petitioner. Hence, the above proposed amendment is in respect of an event regarding which sufficient particulars have not been furnished. From the description as given by the defendant, the identity of the alleged shop cannot be ascertained. Hence the defendant has failed to furnish above particulars even after passing of a specific order by this Court on 16.12.1994. Hence, an amendment based on facts which are ambiguous, cannot be allowed. 7. For the above reasons, in my opinion the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in dismissing the application filed by the defendant petitioner u/O. VI, R. 17 CPC.There is no force in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******