JUDGMENT A.K. Yog, J. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged only one short point and stated that there is no other point. 2. IN order to challenge the order of the Court below allowing amendment application in release proceedings pending at appellate stage under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called 'the Act'), the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that family settlement was (sic) to manufacture can a ground of bona fide need by putting the accommodation in question in the lot of such co-sharer who could establish his bona fide need and comparative hardship at a stage when the existing owner landlord had realised that he could not establish his case. Whether family settlement is genuine and bona fide has to be adjudicated by concerned Court while deciding the appeal after parties have led evidence and the Appellate Court adjudicates upon the said issue. The said contention of the petitioner is also regarding the merit of the pleadings sought to be incorporated by amendment. 3. IT is too late to challenge amendment by showing falsity in the pleadings sought to be incorporated by amendment. This Court as well as apex Court have time and again held that amendment ought to be allowed howsoever, belated provided the other side can be compensated; nature of the suit is not entirely changed and lastly the amendment sought is not mala fide. 4. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had taken an objection while contesting amendment of the said amendment being mala fide (Annexure 6 to the writ petition. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner, however, failed to point out from the petition that such a plea was not only urged in the objection but also pressed before the Court below. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner concedes that there is no such averment in the writ petition. In absence of a categorical averment as above Court will not interfere with the order of the Court below. Judgment and order of the Court below cannot be as sailed on the ground that certain plea taken in the objections does not find mentioned in the judgment unless such an objection was really pressed and notice of the Court was invited to adjudicate on the said point. Judgment and order of the Court below cannot be as sailed on the ground that certain plea taken in the objections does not find mentioned in the judgment unless such an objection was really pressed and notice of the Court was invited to adjudicate on the said point. The mere fact that a family settlement that taken place will not raise a presumption of its being collusive. Parties are free to settle their affairs of mutual agreement through family settlement. If such a settlement is a device to frustrate mala fide the defence of the tenant then certainly the tenant should have led evidence on the point and passed the plea and got it adjudicated in appeal. It will be open to the tenant to raise the objection regarding family settlement being collusive while the appeal itself is being adjudicated. The Court below in appeal allowed amendment application. The main appeal is still pending. I find no manifest error apparent on the face of record in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC1267. The writ petition is misconceived and lacks merits. 5. IT is accordingly dismissed with the observation made above. No costs. Petition dismissed.