Judgment Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. 2. Order dated 1.2.2000 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda, has been impugned in the present revision, which vide the learned Judge has dismissed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff, while observing as under:- "If the plaintiff wants to take benefit that ancestors of the plaintiffs became owners from Raja Harinder Singh and mutations were wrongly sanctioned in favour of Pepsu, then it is certainly in consistent plea and same is not based on adverse possession. If a person is deriving some title then he cannot become owner by way of adverse possession. Since both these pleas are self destructive so plaintiffs cannot be allowed to amend the pleadings as proposed amendment is not necessary for just decision of the case. Moreover plaintiffs did not apply for amendment earlier and this application is moved at the fag end of the case when both the parties have closed their evidence. Plaintiffs have not bothered to explain the reasons as to why the application was not moved at the first available opportunity. Although delay is no ground to refuse the amendment. A party should come to the Court with clean hand. Plaintiff is dragging the defendants which is State of Punjab Into litigation since January, 1993 and has filed an application at much belated stage without any explanation. So application cannot be allowed on this ground also. In view of above discussion, I am of the view that application for amendment of plaint is without any merit and same is accordingly dismissed." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while relying upon the case titled as Varinder Mohan Singh Grover v. Smt. Jeet Kaur, (1992-2)102 P.L.R. 95, contends that the amendment can be allowed at any stage. He further contends that in the cited judgment earlier relief for declaration was prayed while relief of possessession was sought to be introduced at a later stage. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the present application should have been allowed by the learned trial Court. It must be noticed that the learned counsel has not been able to meet, during his arguments, the apparent distinguishing features and facts of the two cases. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the present application should have been allowed by the learned trial Court. It must be noticed that the learned counsel has not been able to meet, during his arguments, the apparent distinguishing features and facts of the two cases. How does the principle in that case apply to the present case on facts, is a question which stares the parties for the grant of relief claimed in the present suit. In the present case, despite the provisions of the Pepsu Abolition of Ala Malkiyat Act, 1954, the Plaintiffs had filed suit for being declared as owners by virtue of adverse possession and now they want not only to alter the relief but completely change the nature of the case, by challenging the mutation recorded as back as in 1957. The applicant seeks to amend the plaint now by introducing another facet to the case of claiming rights and benefits through inheritance. It has been correctly noticed that the plea now sought to be raised, is not only destructive of the originally pleaded case but also amounts to withdrawal of a clear admission, that too without any appropriate explanation. To him for a claim of adverse possession a person has to admit that somebody else is the original owner of the property in question. But, he must specify the basic ingredients for claiming title by adverse possession to succeed against the true owners. There is no justification in the facts and circumstances of the present case, for allowing the present petition. 4. I am unable to see any error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. The revision petition is dismissed in limine.