Honble PRASAD, J.–This revision petition has been filed by the appellant tenants whereby they have impugned the order of the first appellate court alleging that the amendment prayed for by them has wrongfully denied by the court below. Learned first appellate court denied the amendment by stating that in 1984 the suit was filed and the appeal was filed in the year 1992. The present application for ame- ndment was filed by the appellants on 7.12.1995. This is a belated application and such belated amendment cannot be allowed. The amendment was also refused on the ground that joint tenants rights which are now sought to be pressed into service has not been invoked earlier and no reason has been shown for the same. (2). Learned counsel for the respondents has urged that the revision petition- ers cannot invoke the jurisdiction because there is no factual foundation in the written-statement itself that at the time of death they were living with the deceased tenant. What they are now trying to incorporate by way of amendment in the written-statement is nothing but an improvement upon their case. By this amendment they want to correct their stand. Further the amendment is belated and not bona fide. (3). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The amendment is belated because it has been prayed for in the year 1995 in a suit which was filed in the year 1984 and the appeal which was filed in the year 1992. The averments in the written-statement of the appellants also have a bearing on the matter and the amendment which has been read before me by the parties have a bearing on the question. In any case the status of the mother whose case is being sought to be agitated by the appellants is not better than that of a joint tenant. At this stage this kind of amendment is totally uncalled for and not bona fide and therefore, it cannot be said that in refusing the amendment the first appellate court has committed any irregularity or jurisdictional error and, therefore, the order impugned in the revision petition is not liable to be interfered with in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. by this Court. (4). In the result, this revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.