Honble YAMIN, J.–This is a revision against the order of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.3, Udaipur dated 22.11.97 by which he dismissed the amend- ment application submitted on behalf of defendant tenants who are petitioners before him. A Civil Suit was filed by Ramlal, Sohanlal, and Ganpatlal against Suresh and Pannalal, petitioners, for eviction from the shop and for mesne profits. The shop situated at Moti Chohatta, Udaipur was mortgaged with possession by respondents to Motilal and Kishandas. The same was redeemed on 11.11.80. Said Motilal and Kishandas had let out the shop to petitioner Suresh in which he was running his business. Plaintiffs claimed possession of the shop as petitioners were not enti- tled to protection of the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction), Act, 1950 as they were not the tenants of the non-petitioners. The suit proceeded and the evidence of the plaintiffs was completed. Defendant Suresh was also examined. After 13 years, an amendment application was moved which was dismissed by the trial Court. Hence this revision. (2). Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amendments sought are in the nature of explanation of certain pleadings and that the trial Court has dismissed the petitions on the ground that the same was very much belated and hence malafide. He also submitted that if the petitioners are not allowed to make amendment, the trial Court will not allow them to lead the evidence which they want to lead. Therefore, the amendment should have been allowed. He has also submitted that the Courts should be liberal in allowing amendments. All these arguments have been repelled by the counsel for the opposite party. (3). I have given my anxious consideration to the various arguments submitted before the Court. (4). Reliance has been placed before me by the counsel for the petitioners on Jai Jai Ram Manoharlal vs. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon (1), wherein it has been held that the amendment should not be refused on technical grounds, and on Savithri Amma Seethamma Vs. I have given my anxious consideration to the various arguments submitted before the Court. (4). Reliance has been placed before me by the counsel for the petitioners on Jai Jai Ram Manoharlal vs. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon (1), wherein it has been held that the amendment should not be refused on technical grounds, and on Savithri Amma Seethamma Vs. Aratha Karthy and Others (2), wherein it was observed that the Court should be extremely liberal in granting prayer of amend- ment of pleading unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side and a revisional Court also ought not to lightly interfere with a discretion exercised in allowing amendment in absence of cogent reasons of compelling circumstances. (5). In view of the law that the Court should be liberal in allowing amendment, I have seen the order of learned trial Judge. I found that the defendant-petitioners have been moving one application or the other in order to delay the matter because they are in possession of the suit property claiming that they are tenants. When the earlier applications were rejected they preferred an amendment application seeking amendment in relation to cause of action as to how the same had arose when they had not handed over possession of the suit property to the petitioner-tenants. An amendment has also been sought in relation to the court fees and it has been submitted that the Court fee should be paid on the market price of the shop if the plaintiff-respondents wanted to get possession of the shop. Suresh has admitted in his statement the relationship of the tenant and landlord as observed by the learned Court in para No.4 of the impugned order. As such there was no need to plead for an amendment regarding the Court fees. (6). So far as the first point of amendment is concerned, the same is also not necessary. I very well see the malafides of the petitioners by moving such an application after as many as 13 years. The trial Court has not committed any error by disallowing the application of amendment. (7). Consequently, there is no force in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.