JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the order dated 10.9.1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nimbaheda whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioners seeking amendment in their written statement u /O. VI, R. 17 CPC was rejected. 2. The plaintiff-non-petitioner filed a suit for ejectment on behalf of Charbhuja Temple, Chittorgarh against the defendant-petitioners. When the above suit was at the stage of hearing final arguments, the defendant-petitioners moved an application purporting to be u/O. VI, R. 17 CPC seeking amendment to the effect that the property in respect of which the suit was filed belonged to Charbhuja deity and it is worth lak1-4s of rupees for which registration was necessary with the Devasthan Commissioner and since it was not registered as a public trust, the suit filed by the plaintiff-non-petitioner was not maintainable. 3. The above amendment was stoutly resisted by the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff-non-petitioner filed the suit after service of a notice under section 80 CPC on the defendants. The defendants did not care to reply the said notice. These facts were there within the knowledge of the defendants from the very inception. The suit was filed in the year 1983 and the amendment application was moved in the year 1997 i.e. after about 14 long years. 4. The learned trial Court after appreciating the arguments of both the parties felt pursued-ed not to accept the above application on the ground of delay and laches caused by the defendants. Thus, the application filed by the defendants u /O. VI, R. 17 CPC was rejected by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 10.9.1997. Hence this revision petition as aforesaid. 5. I have heard Mr. Prakash Tatia, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants-petitioners and Mr. S.L. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-non-petitioner and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the amendment sought is of vital nature inasmuch as it goes to the root of the case. The plea raised by the defendant is based on law. He also submitted that there can be no dispute that the valuation of the temple is more than Rs. 30,000/-. If this amendment is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff. 7. The plea raised by the defendant is based on law. He also submitted that there can be no dispute that the valuation of the temple is more than Rs. 30,000/-. If this amendment is allowed, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff. 7. Mr. Tatia, has cited Ishwardas v. State of M.P., AIR 1979 SC 551 wherein their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of 0. VI, R. 17 CPC observed that there is no impediment or bar against an appellate Court permitting amendment of pleadings so as to enable a party to raise a new plea. All that is necessary is that the Appellate Court should observe the well known principles subject to which amendments of pleadings are usually granted. Naturally, one of the circumstances which will be taken into consideration before an amendment is granted is the delay in making the application seeking such amendment and, if made at the appellate stage, the reason why it was not sought in the trial Court. If the necessary material on which the plea arising from the amendment may be decided is already there, the amendment may be more readily granted than otherwise. But there is no prohibition against an Appellate Court permitting an amendment at the appellate stage merely because the necessary material is not already before the Court. 8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner has submitted that the application is not bona fide inasmuch the suit was filed in the year 1983 after serving a statutory notice under section 80 CPC on the defendants. The amendment has been sought in the year 1997. The defendants have not explained why this amendment was being sought after these so many years. He submitted that the defendants could have sought this amendment at the earlier stage. Now when the case has been fixed for final arguments, he has sought this amendment. Thus, there is extra ordinary delay in seeking amendment. It is trite law that when a party seeking amendment is not in a position to explain the delay, the amendment so sought should not be allowed. In this connection, reliance has been placed on Mohd. Ishaq v. Mohd. lqbal & Mohd. Ali & Company, AIR 1978 SC 798 . 9. In Mohd. It is trite law that when a party seeking amendment is not in a position to explain the delay, the amendment so sought should not be allowed. In this connection, reliance has been placed on Mohd. Ishaq v. Mohd. lqbal & Mohd. Ali & Company, AIR 1978 SC 798 . 9. In Mohd. Ishaq's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the amendment of the written statement sought in appeal was on such facts which, if permitted to be introduced by way of amendment, would have completely changed the nature of their original defence. It would have brought about an entirely new plea which was never taken in the original pleadings. The additional evidence sought to be adduced was in respect of the facts stated in the amendment petition. It was held that the High Court in appeal rightly rejected all the petitions for amending their written statement and adducing additional evidence. 10. He further referred to a decision of this Court in Badri Narayan v. Ramgopal, AIR 1992 Raj. 136 , wherein this Court disallowed the amendment of plaint sought after lapse of 16 years when the case was fixed for arguments. 11. I have considered the rival contentions made at the bar. It is settled law that the power to allow amendment should be liberally exercised.,Hence, as a general rule, leave to amendment should be granted so as to enable the real question in issue between the parties. It is no doubt true that save in exceptional cases, leave to amend u /O. VI, R. 17 of the Code will ordinarily be refused when the effect of the amendment would be to take away from a party a legal right which had accrued to him by lapse of time. Even from the authorities cited above, it is clear that normally amendments sought after lapse of 10 to 16 years are not allowed. The reason is simple that such amendments are not sought bona fide and the facts on the basis of which the amendment is sought were well within the knowledge of the plaintiff or the defendant seeking amendment. 12. In the instant case also, the defendants could have sought amendment at the very inception of the case. However, this amendment has been sought after the expiry of 16 long years when the case was fixed for arguments. 12. In the instant case also, the defendants could have sought amendment at the very inception of the case. However, this amendment has been sought after the expiry of 16 long years when the case was fixed for arguments. If this amendment is allowed, the defence plea will be altogether changed and the plaintiffs will be required to produce evidence in rebuttal. Thus, I am firmly of the opinion that at such a belated stage, no such amendment in the written statement should be allowed as these amendments are not bona fide and have been sought after a great delay. 13. For the above reasons, I hold that the learned trial Court has not committed any jurisdictional error in rejecting the application filed by the defendant-petitioner u/O. VI, R. 17 CPC.In the result, there is no force in this revision petition and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Revision Dismissed. *******