JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. - In the civil suit filed by Food Corporation of India on November 10, 1989 against M/s. Mehendra Road Lines for recovery of Rs. 1,02,906.01, the defendant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, for amendment of the written statement. The said application was contested by the plaintiff-Corporation. The learned trial Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the said application vide order dated March 16, 1998. Aggrieved against the said order of the trial Court, the defendant has filed the present revision petition in this Court. 2. Notice of motion was issued. 3. Counsel for the parties have been heard. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted before me that the defendant wanted to amend the written statement so as to replace preliminary objection No. 5 by taking the plea that the alleged shortages in transit with regard to food grains had already been adjusted towards the bill of carriage charges of the defendant against the plaintiff-Corporation and that the defendant had not been given any rebate of 0.25% as mentioned in CAG Audit Report of the plaintiff-Corporation and in this manner the plaintiff- Corporation is not entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 1,02,906.01. It was submitted that this amendment was of explanatory nature and did not change the nature of the case and the plaintiff-Corporation can be compensated by costs. It was further submitted that the amendment to the written statement could not be disallowed merely on the ground of delay, as has been done by the trial Court in the present case. Reliance was placed on Ram Singh and others v. Beli Ram, 1989 PLJ 335, Sukhdev Singh and another v. Chhaju and another, 1994 PLJ 326 and Kaka Singh v. Mithu Dass and others, 1990 PLJ 345. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff- respondent-Corporation has submitted that the petitioner could not be allowed to amend the written statement at such a belated stage especially when the case was at the final stage. Reliance was placed on Shambhu Dayal v. Nand Lal and others, 1989(1) PLR 668 : 1989 PLJ 316 and M/s. Baba Nihal Singh Gurmeet Singh and another v. Punjab Tractors Limited and another, 1989(1) PLR 329. 6. Reliance was placed on Shambhu Dayal v. Nand Lal and others, 1989(1) PLR 668 : 1989 PLJ 316 and M/s. Baba Nihal Singh Gurmeet Singh and another v. Punjab Tractors Limited and another, 1989(1) PLR 329. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, in my opinion, it is a fit case where the trial Court should have allowed the defendant to amend the written statement. As referred to above, the defendant wanted to amend the written statement so as to take up the plea that the alleged shortages in transit with regard to food grains had already been adjusted towards the bill of carriage charges of the defendant against the plaintiff-Corporation and the defendant had not been given any rebate as alleged in the CAG Audit Report of the plaintiff-Corporation and as such the plaintiff-Corporation was not entitled to recover the impugned amount from the defendant. The said CAG Audit Report has already been produced on the record as Ex.PW 2/1. The defendant, in the written statement, had already denied its liability to pay Rs. 1,02,906.01 to the plaintiff-Corporation and had already taken the plea that the road transit loss to the extent of 0.25% could be allowed to the transport contractors in view of the instructions issued by the plaintiff-Corporation. In these circumstances, it would be clear that the amendment sought to be made in the written statement is only of a clarificatory nature and would not make out a case on behalf of the defendant. So far as the delay is concerned, no doubt there is delay on the part of the defendant. However, the delay can be explained because the amendment is based on the CAG Audit Report which was produced in evidence by the plaintiff- Corporation only on December 22, 1997 as Ex.PW 2/1. It was thereafter that the present application under Order 6 Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code, for the amendment of the written statement was filed by the petitioner and the same is dated February 17, 1998. 7. In the various authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been held by this Court that the amendment in the pleadings could not be declined only on the ground that the application had been filed after a lapse of many years. 7. In the various authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been held by this Court that the amendment in the pleadings could not be declined only on the ground that the application had been filed after a lapse of many years. The law laid down in these authorities would fully apply to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, the two authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent would have no application to the facts of the present case. In Shambhu Dayal v. Nand Lal and others (supra), it was held that the delay in seeking amendment was one of the factors to be explained by the party seeking amendment. In M/s. Baba Nihal Singh Gurmeet Singh and another v. Punjab Tractors Limited and another (supra), the defendant had claimed specific amount from the plaintiffs and had paid necessary Court-fees and the documents were already in the notice of the defendants. Under those circumstances, the order, dismissing the amendment application, was upheld by this Court. However, as referred to above, the facts in the present case are entirely different and the law laid down in these authorities have no application to the facts of the present case. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the amendment could not be disallowed merely on the ground that there was delay in filing the application or that the amendment to the written statement would delay the disposal of the case. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, the trial Court had acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction while dismissing the amendment application for amendment of the written statement and it requires interference by this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the present revision petition is allowed, the order dated March 16, 1998, passed by the learned trial Court, is set aside and the petitioner is allowed to amend the written statement as prayed for. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Revision allowed.