Judgment 1. The defendants are the petitioners in this civil revision application which arises out of an order dated 24.8.1999 passed in an eviction suit filed by the plaintiffs whereby the court below allowed the proposed amendment sought for on behalf of the plaintiffs in the plaint. The suit was originally filed by Maharajadhiraj Kameshwar Singh Memorial Hospital Trust, Darbhanga, including Dr. Surinder Mishra, Secretary to the Executive Committee of the said Hospital Trust being plaintiff- Ist party and three others were made plaintiff-2nd party, which was registered as Eviction Suit No. 16 of 1992 against the defendant-petitioners on the ground of personal necessity. During the pendency of the suit, a petition for amendment of the plaint was filed in terms of Order VI, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein it has been stated that in the aforesaid suit, due to mistake and oversight, instead the names of Maharajadhiraj Kameshwar Singh Charitable Trust through its Trustees, Sri Dwarikanath Jha, Sri Madan Mohan Jha and Sri Kamnath Jha, the name of Maharajadhiraj Kameshwar Singh Memorial Hospital, Darbhanga, through its Secretary of the Executive Committee of the Hospital Trust and Dr. Surinder Mishra were mentioned as plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 as the plaintiffs Ist party and the Trustees, namely, Sri Dwarikanath Jha, Sri Madan Mohan Mishra and Sri Manath Jha have been mentioned as plaintiff-2nd party. Acordingly, it was prayed that the names of Maharajadhiraj Kameshwar Singh Memorial Hospital and Dr. Surinder Jha be deleted and in their place the names of Maharajadhiraj Kameshwar Singh Charitable Trust through its trustees, Sri Dwarikanath Jha, Sri Madan Mohan Mishra and Mameshwar Jha-plaintiff 2nd party be added as the plaintiffs. The Court on consideration of the materials available on the record, allowed the amendment in the plaint sought for by the plaintiffs. From the original plaint it appears that the persons who are sought to be added as plaintiffs were already on record as plaintiff nos. 3, 4 and 5 or plaintiff-2nd party. The plaintiff no. 1 is the Maharajadhiraj Kameshwar Singh Memorial Hospital through its Secretary of the Executive Committee of the said Hospital. It was, therefore, submitted that the trustees were already on the record. Instead Maharajadhiraj Kameshwar Singh Charitable Trust it should be Maharajdhiraj Kameshwar Singh Charitable Trust. 3, 4 and 5 or plaintiff-2nd party. The plaintiff no. 1 is the Maharajadhiraj Kameshwar Singh Memorial Hospital through its Secretary of the Executive Committee of the said Hospital. It was, therefore, submitted that the trustees were already on the record. Instead Maharajadhiraj Kameshwar Singh Charitable Trust it should be Maharajdhiraj Kameshwar Singh Charitable Trust. Learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the order impugned on the ground that the suit was filed in the year 1992 whereas the amendment petition was filed in the year 1999 and, as such, it cannot be allowed at this belated stage. While developing his argument, learned counsel submits that by the proposed amendment, the cause of action sought to be changed which is not permissible in the eye of law. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Smt. Phool Rani and ors. vs. Sh. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia ( AIR 1973 SC 2210 ), wherein it has been held that legal representatives of a landlord have no right to continue the proceeding initiated by the landlord for ejectment of the tenant on personal necessity after the death of the landlord. The learned counsel has further relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shantilal Thaordas and ors. vs. Chimanlal Maganlal Telwala [ (1976) 4 SCC 417 ]. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel in support of his contention are not in any way applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, as much as, as stated above, the persons sought to be brought on record were already party as plaintiff-2nd party as being a Trustee of the said Maharajadhiraj Kameshwar Singh Charitable Trust. It appears from the averments made in the plaint that the suit was filed for eviction of the defendants from the premises in question on the ground of bona fide personal requirement of the premises for the use of the said Trust. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record including the decisions referred to above, I am of the view that the proposed amendment will neither change the cause of action nor the nature of the suit is going to be changed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record including the decisions referred to above, I am of the view that the proposed amendment will neither change the cause of action nor the nature of the suit is going to be changed. It is well known principle of law by now that mere delay will not disentitle the party from filing the amendment in the pleadings, if such amendment is required for just decision of the suit. In the premises, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned and accordingly this civil revision application is dismissed.